DNC affirms using your God-given potential; Jerusalem forever the undivided capital of Israel.

[limpyhobbler]

[msongs]

1. doing what their republican overlords demand. ugh nt

[NYC_SKP]

2. Pretty chauvinistic, IMO, to discuss Israel at all.

Who the fuck do we think we are?

I get the importance of it, but the way this went down is embarrassing and they should have skipped it or worked it out differently, more discretely.

[limpyhobbler]

14. To their credit, they did leave it out at first.

But it keeps coming back.

[progressoid]

3. Holy shit.

Or I should say, "Bullshit".

[AlbertCat]

4. Just more trouble from religion

Here's how it's being reported:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-god-jerusalem-platform_n_1859200.html?1346881622&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D201523



This is why religion (and the Jerusalem stuff is religious) was and shoulda been left out.

[blackspade]

10. Yahoo has some miserable reporting as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/democrats-reinstate-god-jerusalem-israel-capital-party-platform-223437220--election.html

Highlights (or low-lights)

"Facing unhappy pro-Israel groups amid a Republican-led outcry, Democrats gathered Wednesday at their presidential nominating convention made 11th-hour changes to the party platform to reinstate a reference to God and a declaration that "undivided" Jerusalem is Israel's capital."

"Republicans raised a hue and cry over the Democrats' decision to no longer include the words "God-given" after David Brody of CBN News reported its absence (while also noting that the platform included a section on the importance of faith)."


Why in the fuck are we letting the rethugs tell us what belongs in OUR platform?
I can't believe that there is any attention paid at all to a party that has some of the most regressive and repressive positions in their platform.

Seriously, W. T. F!??

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. This is political and not religious

Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital. The platform supports Israel's choice.

[HiPointDem]

19. so what? why are israel's politics part of the democratic platform?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Actually it is an important foreign policy issue

[HiPointDem]

24. jerusalem being the capital of israel is an important foreign policy issue? important to who?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. In the Middle East it is a huge freaking deal

Palestinians...perhaps you have heard of them

[Civilization2]

5. that is disgusting,. why does the democratic party get to draw lines in other countries?

religion is a blight on the planet,. and all suffering will continue as long as we let this 'god' noise into public policy debates,. the invisible man in the sky,. really?

[emilyg]

6. Good question.

[DonCoquixote]

9. when they are scared

that they will tick off a group that donates money, the zionists, the same people who cheered when Hillary offered to obliterate Iran.

[Speck Tater]

7. I'm outraged that the platform makes no mention of the Buddha.

Or Allah, or the FSM, or Ganesh the Elephant God of Hinduism. What's the matter with these people? Don't they recognize that people need to receive affirmation for their fairy tales?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Actually it is not a religious issue

It is an important foreign policy point.

[Speck Tater]

28. "God-given" is not foreign policy. I wasn't talking about the other issue. nt

[limpyhobbler]

31. I wonder if there is some connection between the two amendments.

Governor Strickland did introduce the two amendments together

1) First he volunteers that he is an ordained Methodist minister. Then,

2) "I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we've expressed in our party's platform,"
...
3) "In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party's platform should as well."

The way the three items were offered together makes them seem connected somehow.

I wish they would have offered the two amendments separately. At least held two separate votes. So they wouldn't seem to be mixing their attestation of God in with the foreign policy. Unless that is what they intended.

[Zoftig1]

8. AIPAC

AIPAC says jump, Democratic Party says "how high?"

[JohnyCanuck]

11. In caving on Jerusalem, Dems pulled back the curtain on the lobby

by Philip Weiss

Last night was an amazing moment at the Democratic National Convention; for an instant, we saw the Israel lobby naked on the national stage. When party bosses stuffed the phrase, "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel," back into the platform, reportedly at the command of the president himself, and the Democratic rank-and-file on the floor bridled at the command and booed, and even the convention chair, Mayor Villaraigosa, looked to be following orders, the curtain was pulled back on the wizard of Oz-- to use the great conspiratorial figure of a previous American century-- and the press and the informed public were left to discuss what we had all just seen.

snip

Most of the press subsequently performed damage control. Larry O'Donnell of MSNBC poohpoohed it as routine platform-management. Andrea Mitchell changed the subject to the weather shifting tonight's venue, and balloons. Only one commentator truly distinguished himself. Chris Hayes of MSNBC said that it was a "craven" moment and went right to the policy implications, that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is "untenable" and one cause of the endless conflict in the Middle East. Rachel Maddow quickly turned the subject to the other word the Dems had reinserted in the platform-- God-- to get the conversation back on safe ground.

Here is a roundup of some of the reporting and some of the responses:

Andrew Sullivan:

when AIPAC says jump, an entire political party asks "how high?" Every now and again, you see the stranglehold and you realize just how contorted this debate is in Washington.

Ali Abunimah at IMEU sees the upside in the exposure; we might actually talk about policy:

"By adding Jerusalem as Israel's capital to their platform under pressure from the Israel lobby, Democrats hoped to relieve such pressure. Instead they are likely to have made it worse as video clearly shows that even after three votes delegates were unhappy with the change. The fact that the chair declared the "ayes" had it anyway is a neat summary of how decisions are made when it comes to Israel. Both parties are in a bidding war to appease Israel's most extreme supporters at home and abroad. If this means riding roughshod over American and world opinion, international law and the basic rights of the Palestinian people, then so be it.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/in-caving-on-jerusalem-dems-pulled-back-the-curtain-on-the-lobby.html

[limpyhobbler]

13. It does give us an opportunity to talk about the Jerusalem question, and

a chance to talk about how to make our processes more authentic and democratic.

Also to talk about the role of money in our politics.

[WallaceRitchie]

12. Cluster****

Somewhere, Sheldon Adelson was laughing his butt off.

[Dokkie]

16. The part that really pisses me off

Is how the folks at C-SPAN focused on the lady with the "Arab- American Democrat" sign like it is only Arab American that are supposed to be against the platform change. Ofc no focus on maybe Jewish/Christian American people shouting in favor of this change.

[limpyhobbler]

17. You're right it was a little weird.

I thought it deserved attention because of the way it was being railroaded through.

It didn't seem like that voice vote was really two-thirds. Seemed really undemocratic.

So the losing side of the railroaded policy deserves more attention than the winning side.

You're right though it was a little weird. Many non-Arab-American Democrats also would not support it.

Heck even plenty of Jewish-Americans wouldn't support it.

I think presenting the Arab-Americans like that was just a visual symbolic shorthand for the idea that not everybody was happy with it.

You make a good point.

[HiPointDem]

20. the response from the floor made it clear that it was more than "arab-americans" against that

motion. way clear.

[shaayecanaan]

26. Shouldnt there be a show of hands in such instances?

I thought the voice vote could only be carried if it was truly clear that 2/3 were in favour. That did not seem the case in this instance.

[HiPointDem]

27. obviously there was no 2/3 in favor.

[shaayecanaan]

29. The first chap thought as much, evidently...

then some other lady came up (sorry, dont really know the names here) and said, fuck it, just let it go through.

A bit of a farce, really.

[redgreenandblue]

18. So they are for the one-state solution now?

[cpwm17]

21. It seems that way.

Except the Palestinians are not part of their equation.

Some pseudo liberal racists still give the two-state 'solution' lip service so they can feel better about themselves.

It is already one state:


ONE APARTHEID STATE

There is no path toward two states. The Palestinians were there first and they're not going away.

[shaayecanaan]

30. Democrats play the blame game on Israel flap

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/06/democrats_play_the_blame_game_on_israel_platform_flap

CHARLOTTE - Following a tumultuous and embarrassing episode Wednesday in which the Democratic National Committee suddenly altered its platform to embrace Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, top Democrats are pointing fingers in every direction.

After defending their decision to keep language on final status issues out of the platform all morning Wednesday, convention leaders reversed themselves Wednesday afternoon and proposed two amendments to the platform adopted on Tuesday, one to add a mention of God and one to add a mention of Jerusalem. That decision followed a full day of pressure brought on the DNC and the administration by lawmakers, AIPAC, and other Jewish elected officials in Charlotte.

An Obama campaign official told The Cable late Wednesday that the change in platform was made to reflect the personal views of the president, who believes that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and who "personally intervened" to ask for the platform change. The official explanation is that the omission of the Jerusalem line was an oversight by platform drafting staff, even though people involved in the drafting said Wednesday that the omission was intentional, as a means of avoiding discussing final-status issues altogether.

snip

Smith also commented on the perception that the crowd inside the hall did not actually vote in favor of the new platform plank but the convention heads ignored the crowd and declared that two-thirds of delegates had voted for it.

"I've taken some voice votes and I've received some voice votes, and I can tell you it's in the ear of the beholder," he said. "I've been at a lot of conventions. Something will always spring up. It never fails. Something on the floor surprises you. That will never stop."

[JRLeft]

32. AIPAC has too much power in our political process.