Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/10/05 15:57:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man..
I don't believe anyone on this thread opined that his beliefs should disqualify him from office, so I think that's a bit of a strawman.
As for me personally, I certainly don't think he should be disqualified from office. I simply find it very hard - nay, impossible - to believe that's what he really believes. I think he is lying about not believing in evolution because he knows that is what the GOP base wants to hear. And even that, really, I don't have a problem with per se; politicians lie all the time about how much they care about x or y. My concern is that a large bloc of our voting public now appear to believe in very very stupid ideas to the point that even really smart people must pretend to also believe in their stupid ideas or prove unelectable. This is a big problem, I think, but it's not really Dr. Carson's problem; he's simply playing the game, and I don't hate the player.
And, to be clear, it's a big problem for you. I consider myself a moderate independant. I have in the past and presumably will in the future vote for GOP candidates. However, as I'm generally socially pretty liberal, and that's the part of the platform I actually are about, I'm going to tend to vote for Democrats in a presidential election. While indeed there is a large bloc of the voting public that seems to need to hear stupid ideas, it's not a big enough bloc to win elections anymore. Demographic-wise, it's now I think very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly so as old conservative white people die off, and are replaced with demographics who the GOP makes no effort to reach out to, other than as a token or to demonize in an attempt to appeal to the dwindling former.
So if the party I generally find less desirable for president decided to step up the pace on their willing march off into unelectability.... like I said, that's not a problem for me.
edit: come on, like 2 typos per sentences? jfc
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/10/05 16:02:31
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/10/05 16:11:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man..
I don't believe anyone on this thread opined that his beliefs should disqualify him from office, so I think that's a bit of a strawman.
As for me personally, I certainly don't think he should be disqualified from office. I simply find it very hard - nay, impossible - to believe that's what he really believes. I think he is lying about not believing in evolution because he knows that is what the GOP base wants to hear. And even that, really, I don't have a problem with per se; politicians lie all the time about how much they care about x or y. My concern is that a large bloc of our voting public now appear to believe in very very stupid ideas to the point that even really smart people must pretend to also believe in their stupid ideas or prove unelectable. This is a big problem, I think, but it's not really Dr. Carson's problem; he's simply playing the game, and I don't hate the player.
And, to be clear, it's a big problem for you. I consider myself a moderate independant. I have in the past and presumably will in the future vote for GOP candidates. However, as I'm generally socially pretty liberal, and that's the part of the platform I actually are about, I'm going to tend to vote for Democrats in a presidential election. While indeed there is a large bloc of the voting public that seems to need to hear stupid ideas, it's not a big enough bloc to win elections anymore. Demographic-wise, it's now I think very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly so as old conservative white people die off, and are replaced with demographics who the GOP makes no effort to reach out to, other than as a token or to demonize in an attempt to appeal to the dwindling former.
So if the party I generally find less desirable for president decided to step up the pace on their willing march off into unelectability.... like I said, that's not a problem for me.
edit: come on, like 2 typos per sentences? jfc
While I agree with the general premise here... I've been hearing this notion that it's "very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly" drum since 2008. That doesn't jive with the massive GOP wins in 2010 and 2014. From context, I think you're really just targeting the Presidential elections... and if that's the case, I think you're spot on with a twist.
The twist is that, now more than ever, the establishments in both parties are getting kicked in the teef now. Can this acrimony sustain throughout the grind?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/05 16:36:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
President is really the only national election. 'Big' wins in non-presidential years for senate doesn't count. Any election for the house doesn't even come close to counting since the Republicans have basically cheated with that (Gerrymandering).
This kind of points to the remaining strength of the Republican party. They are motivated by hate which is a stronger motivator to go out and vote. They vote more often even though they are very much a minority. Having an enemy is a great motivator and the GOP is good at having enemies (Muslims, Atheists, immigrants, homosexuals, the poor, Blacks, etc). Combine that with being the party that tries to make it harder for people to vote.
The Democrats are more of an live and let live party so they have more trouble motivating people to go out and vote.
This gives the Republicans more of a representation and more power than they deserve.
2015/10/05 16:50:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The Democrats are more of an live and let live party so they have more trouble motivating people to go out and vote.
Seriously?
They have a HUGE election day ground game supported by the various unions (and the public unions are VERY good at this) along with 'Acorn like' community organizations.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/10/05 16:59:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
2015/10/05 17:24:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Augustus Sol Invictus, Floridian former lawyer and current Libertarian candidate for Senate, once described himself as “of genius intellect,” “God’s gift to humankind where the English language is concerned,” and “everything you ever wanted to be.” Critics describe him as “a self-proclaimed fascist” and “absolute insanity.” One time, he killed a goat and drank its blood.
Other members of the Libertarian party, in an effort to disown Invictus and his calls for open revolt against the government, have repeatedly brought up rumors that Invictus participated in a pagan sacrifice. And now, according to the AP, he’s owned up to it: “I did sacrifice a goat. I know that’s probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans,” he said. “I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness ... Yes, I drank the goat’s blood.”
The AP notes that he drank the blood in order to “give thanks” for a successful week of prayer and fasting in the Mojave Desert, so it’s understandable.
Invictus—who legally changed his name to the Latin for “unconquered sun”—was previously best known for a rambling, vainglorious “departure memo” in which he renounced his law degree, his educational institutions, and his U.S. citizenship, and declared a “Second Civil War.”...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 17:25:20
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/10/05 17:26:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Like how Obama said post '14 election:
“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too,” he said.
WASHINGTON — With conference finished on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it appears that sweeping acquisition reforms spearheaded by Sen. John McCain will become the law of the land.
The bill, reported out of a joint committee Sept. 29, gives service chiefs and secretaries overall responsibility for acquisition programs within the services — a shift away from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), which has held milestone decision authority over programs for roughly the past 30 years.
“That’s designed to establish clear lines of authority and clear accountability so the service chief and service secretary are given greater responsibility in this bill,” a Senate Armed Services Committee staff member said during a briefing with reporters a day after the committee report was filed.
Months of negotiations between House and Senate committee conferees sorted through more than 120 acquisition policy provisions to yield a conference report with mostly Senate provisions. The measures are aimed at increasing accountability, streamlining existing rules, and gaining access to different and nontraditional parts of the industrial base.
That McCain’s vision for reform won out is no small thing, particularly when it comes to the authorities that will devolve to the service chiefs — a key component of the senator's language.
That was in contrast to the version authored by Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who heads the House Armed Services Committee. The HASC version did not include as large a role for the service chiefs, leading to questions about how things would shake out in conference.
A House Armed Services Committee staff member, however, said the two bills were “incredibly complementary” and denied there were huge differences. “I think there was an over-irrationalization of the differences between what the two chairmen were trying to get to,” he said.
The biggest change from the language means service secretaries and chiefs are expected to be engaged in the early stages of programs, deciding on performance, technical and cost issues before they allow programs to advance. They would also have to sign off on any new requirements, and to certify that a program’s funding and requirements are stable.
Cost overruns of more than 15 percent — a Nunn-McCurdy breach — would mean a transfer of the program back to AT&L, and it would require the services to pay penalties at 3 percent of the overrun. These penalties would pay into a fund controlled by AT&L for prototyping throughout the Department of Defense.
The shift in authority will apply to new programs in 2017, and AT&L will retain authority over joint programs.
Supporters of the language have pitched it as a way to curb the requirements creep that bloats defense programs, but there are concerns both inside and outside the Pentagon that the language will effectively gut the power wielded by Pentagon acquisitions chief Frank Kendall.
Congressional staffers downplayed the shift in power, insisting the provisions will apply to relatively few programs at first, would not change the defense secretary’s authority and actually provides the defense secretary with new tools to conduct business with commercial entities.
“Last time I checked, the services report to the secdef, and AT&L reports to secdef, and the undersecretary for policy reports to secdef,” said the Senate Armed Services Committee staff member. “The secretary of defense retains ultimate authority here.”
A spokeswoman for Kendall declined to comment, but in a July letter to Congress, Defense Secretary Ash Carter warned of “significant concerns” if power was shifted from AT&L to the service chiefs.
Doing so, Carter wrote, would prevent Pentagon leadership’s ability to "guard against unwarranted optimism in program planning and budget formulation, and prevent excessive risk-taking during execution — all of which is essential to avoiding overruns and costly delays."
Reaction
In order to provide new flexibility in acquisition, the language aims at having the Pentagon formalize rapid acquisition pathways typically reserved for crises, streamlining and creating waiver authority for two-to-five-year programs to allow foreign purchases. It also adds cyber to the urgent acquisitions process established in 2003.
Other such tools provide access to nontraditional parts of the industrial base, with expanded authorities to buy commercial products — outside federal acquisitions — for space systems, medical needs and other areas.
As the Pentagon makes overtures to Silicon Valley, the intent is to provide the military greater speed and flexibility to meet its urgent needs, congressional aides said.
“One of the things that’s different between acquisition reform then and now is that it is really tied to national security” the HASC staffer said. “From a technological superiority standpoint, we had 20 years to overcome the gaps, and in today’s day and age we just don’t have that. We have to do things faster.”
Dave McCurdy, the former congressman and co-creator of the Nunn-McCurdy rules, said the chairmen are trying to “put more teeth” in order to “actually impose some costs associated with nonperformance” in the acquisition system.
“It is certainly different from what we originally proposed, but I think they are becoming more frustrated with some of the breaches,” McCurdy said.
At a Sept. 30 event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a panel of experts were largely optimistic about the changes.
Moshe Schwartz, a specialist in defense acquisition policy for the Congressional Research Service, praised the focus on “issues of human beings being part of that acquisition process.”
He notes that reform efforts talk about accountability, program manager authority and training, areas that often have been overlooked in the past.
Andrew Hunter, director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at CSIS and a former director for DoD's Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, said the reform language is largely positive. But he raised concerns about changes to Milestone B authority, where the service chiefs will have greater authority.
“My concern is that I think it treats every milestone as if they are all the same,” Hunter said. “In my view, Milestone B, you’re making a huge decision about strategy and an investment for the department that the process simply will demand the secretary of defense’s view play a heavy role, because it is a departmental decision.
“And I think that will have to happen, to some extent, through the backdoor as a result of the way the language is written, rather than it being out in the open for everyone to see and participate in,” Hunter said. “I think that ultimately is not a great thing.”
Steve Grundman, a former Pentagon industrial policy chief and now the principal of Grundman Advisory, called that a fair concern, but believes the service chiefs are uniquely positioned to weigh in on requirements, budgets and force decisions for a program.
“That’s their job,” he said. “So I would like to think their authority and stature will help good decisions get made.”
Of course, the looming caveat of any acquisition reform language is when, or if, it goes into effect.
President Obama is expected to veto the NDAA over $38 billion in additional funding included in the overseas contingency operations (OCO) wartime account. Obama and leading Democrats have derided OCO, which is exempt from congressionally mandated budget caps, as a “gimmick” that allows GOP leaders to inflate defense funding without increasing domestic spending.
Service Chiefs
Grundman does expect some “short-term turmoil” as the rules are figured out and the service chiefs adjust to their new responsibilities.
And the chiefs have largely appeared eager to adjust to the new rules. A sense of welcome for additional authority has permeated discussions over the last several months.
Both Gen. Ray Odierno, the recently retired chief of staff for the Army, and Adm. Jon Greenert, who has also since retired as chief of naval operations, have praised the idea of taking a larger role in acquisition.
But with new powers come new responsibilities, and at least one of the Joint Chiefs is concerned that the new language may prove to be a double-edged sword.
“I think you have to be a little careful what you ask for,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, said in a September exclusive interview with Defense News.
While agreeing with his fellow chiefs that being involved in the process is important, he said that the services already have major input about how programs are acquired: “I have never felt disconnected from acquisition since I've been in this job.”
Assigning extra responsibilities to the service chiefs, he said, requires a deep understanding of acquisition policy and technology — adding another proverbial spinning plate to the ones the chiefs are already monitoring.
“I spent a few years working in the acquisition business in the Air Force, and I know how much work goes into it,” Welsh said. “I know how much energy is spent trying to get these programs right. I know the level of expertise of our acquisition professionals that do the job.
“Putting acquisition authorities into the service chief's box may create a problem because it would completely change the job, and we'd have to think through that because you'd have to spend an awful lot of time getting smart about the acquisition business.”
Both Hunter and Grundman were optimistic about the increased role for the chiefs. But Grundman also pointed out that OSD is not being entirely cut out of the process.
“It’s not like OSD will have no authority over the choices the services make. There is the program and budget review. And ultimately if the thing doesn’t make it into the budget, it won’t matter what authorities the services have over the programs.”
McCurdy also worries that removing AT&L from the mix might lead to more stovepiped acquisition — one of the primary targets of Goldwater-Nichols so many years ago.
“You have to be a little careful that you don’t undermine AT&L and its role as well,” he said, “because ultimately, in my opinion, ultimately it’s about making strategic choices.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 09:14:18
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/05 17:28:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Damn, the Ds put up enemies all the time to motivate their voting blocks. Your side uses the 'war on women' meme, the 'wall street fat cats' meme, the 'they are racists' meme, the 'They want to take away your healthcare so you die' meme, the 'They'll get you into wars and force your children to die' meme, the 'They'll destroy more of the environment' meme and so on to build up enemies, and it works well for them. For feths sake, they ran a damned ad showing a R-candidate look-a-like pushing someone in a wheel chair over a fething cliff.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/10/05 17:34:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The twist is that, now more than ever, the establishments in both parties are getting kicked in the teef now. Can this acrimony sustain throughout the grind?
The issue is that many of the people who are kicking the GOP establishment in the teeth believe some very foolish things. These things include "Evolution is not real, and should not be taught in public school!", "Muslims are evil!", "Christians are persecuted!", "Conservatives are persecuted!", etc. Not all of these people believe those things, but they will likely be dragged into voting alongside the people who do.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/10/05 17:37:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Damn, the Ds put up enemies all the time to motivate their voting blocks. Your side uses the 'war on women' meme, the 'wall street fat cats' meme, the 'they are racists' meme, the 'They want to take away your healthcare so you die' meme, the 'They'll get you into wars and force your children to die' meme, the 'They'll destroy more of the environment' meme and so on to build up enemies, and it works well for them. For feths sake, they ran a damned ad showing a R-candidate look-a-like pushing someone in a wheel chair over a fething cliff.
You mean the "Throw Granny off the Cliff" ad?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/05 17:46:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Funny, I specifically said that I wasn't talking about the organization structure but rather the people, so why do you keep on trying to bring up the organizational structure? I believe that is what is called a straw man, though worse because I specifically said I wasn't talking about something and you keep on trying to bring up arguments about it.
The level of hate and vitriol expressed by the people voting (Not the organizations trying to get people to vote) is significantly higher for Republicans.
The Republican party is based on the idea that people not like them are evil people. The Democratic party is based on the idea of more of an open tent and a live and let live ideal.
And even your examples show the difference in strategy. Republican idea is that 'different from me==bad person'. Democrat strategy is that 'actively trying to hurt someone else==bad person'.
Being open minded means that you question whether they are actually trying to hurt someone or are just misguided, thus it is harder to build up the hate for them. If you think a person who is different is a bad person for being different, it's a lot harder to be open minded about them.
It's a lot harder and less effective for the Democratic party to create an enemy because of the mentality of the people in the party and what the party stands for.
2015/10/05 17:48:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Damn, the Ds put up enemies all the time to motivate their voting blocks. Your side uses the 'war on women' meme, the 'wall street fat cats' meme, the 'they are racists' meme, the 'They want to take away your healthcare so you die' meme, the 'They'll get you into wars and force your children to die' meme, the 'They'll destroy more of the environment' meme and so on to build up enemies, and it works well for them. For feths sake, they ran a damned ad showing a R-candidate look-a-like pushing someone in a wheel chair over a fething cliff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 17:50:19
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/10/05 17:52:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: You act like the Democrats back then are anything like the Democrats now.
It was Clinton people who first brought up the issue of whether Obama was a US citizen.
It was the Obama administration that declaimed a "war on women."
It was Ann Richards who said Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. (I just threw that in because I loved it).
And on the flip side we have the Dukakis ad showing him bebopping around like the world biggest dork in a tank.Wait what, that was a Dukakis pr move? Ooops!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/05 17:59:50
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/10/05 18:00:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Still waiting for something relevant relating to my argument.
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
But please, keep up the straw man arguments. It's quite amusing.
2015/10/05 18:42:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: Still waiting for something relevant relating to my argument.
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
But please, keep up the straw man arguments. It's quite amusing.
Okay... the last Democratic National Convention...
"God" was boo'ed:
Israel was boo'ed too... until it was reversed:
Organizational-ish enough for ya?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/05 20:59:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You must be looking at another video. I watched it in real time and still remember it vividly...
So, yes... you're right that the DNC participants didn't really specifically "boo" God... it's more complicated than that....
Keep in mind that the Democratic leaders had removed references to God (and to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) prior to the main DNC event. The main reason why they boo'ed was when Villaigosa(sp?)asked for 3 separate voice votes on the amendment for the DNC plank to restore then mention of God. It was on the 3rd vote, the third try, Villaigosa ruled that the “Yes" won by a two-thirds majority. All tally'ed up by a "voice" vote.
It was a complete sham because the participants stood up loudly and protested, waving and shouting, when they realized that the fix was in.
It was obvious that there wasn't a two-third majority to restore the mention of God... in fact, the delegates obviously thought that amendment was controversial...
In the end, the DNC apparatchick realized the ensuing PR disaster and didn’t want an open debate on God or the capitol of Israel during the convention.
Thus, the FUBAR'ed work Villaigosa was forced to conduct...
It's a shame that we don’t know whether or not a majority of participants at this DNC convention actually objected to mentioning God in the party’s platform or stating which is the capitol of Israel, or some general objection to God/Isreal/Jerusalem...
Obviously, the party leadership didn’t want us to know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/05 21:28:30
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/05 21:29:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: You must be looking at another video. I watched it in real time and still remember it vividly...
The only booing I heard was when it was called as an "aye" when it seemed pretty evenly split between "aye" and "nay" to me. It must have seemed pretty evenly split to him as well since he did it 3 times.
The only booing I heard was when it was called as an "aye" when it seemed pretty evenly split between "aye" and "nay" to me. It must have seemed pretty evenly split to him as well since he did it 3 times.
You need your hearing aids check?
Ask yourself this... why did Villiargos felt the need to redo the vote three times?
Hey... man... I'm 'splaining to skyth that the Democrats ain't all sunshines and rainbows... He keeps sprouting some nonsense that there's nothing wrong with the DNC leaderships/structures.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! We are "Breaking With Convention." This is "War, Peace and the Presidency," covering the Democratic convention, inside and out. I’m Amy Goodman. The 2012 Democratic National Convention has entered its third day here in Charlotte. President Obama arrived here last night and is scheduled to accept his party’s nomination for a second presidential term tonight.
Democratic delegates held a surprise voice vote on the party platform yesterday afternoon. The convention invoked God and reinstated language from the 2008 platform describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In confusing scenes in the first moments of the convention proceedings on Wednesday, when many delegates were not present, a vote on the language was called three times, because of the large number of voices both for and against the motion. Despite loud objections from the audience, convention chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said he determined that two-thirds of delegates had voted in favor of the proposed changes. This is [Ted] Strickland, former Ohio governor and chair of the party’s platform [drafting] committee.
TED STRICKLAND: This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. As the chair, I come before you today to discuss two important matters related to our party’s national platform. As an ordained United Methodist minister, 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. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and our party’s platform should, as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing, and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: A motion has been made. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the—let me do that again. All of those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I—I guess—
UNIDENTIFIED: You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re going to do.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I’ll do that one more time. All those delegates in favor, say "aye. "
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative. The motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.
AMY GOODMAN: That was convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announcing the results of the surprise voice vote held on Wednesday afternoon at the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic Party had faced mounting criticism from Republican nominee Mitt Romney and others for omitting the reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan said, quote, "This is tragic. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Mitt Romney and I are very clear on this. ... What is so tragic about this is that this is one of the few issues where the Republican Party and the Democratic Party agreed," Paul Ryan said. Reports emerged shortly afterwards that President Obama had personally intervened to change the platform’s language back.
Well, to talk more about the significance of the vote, we’re joined now by James Zogby. He’s the president of the Arab American Institute, and he’s a superdelegate here at the Democratic National Convention, also a member of the convention’s platform committee.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JAMES ZOGBY: No cape, though. Superdelegate, but I don’t fly, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: OK. What does "superdelegate" mean exactly?
JAMES ZOGBY: It means we’re members of the Democratic National Committee, and we become automatic delegates to the convention.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you explain what took place yesterday afternoon, to the shock of people, I think, both in the convention center as well as people watching on television?
JAMES ZOGBY: Look, I’ve been dealing with platforms on the Middle East on this issue now for almost 30 years. They run scared, like Chicken Little, any time somebody raises a peep about the issue. I think, you know, the mounting criticism came from Republicans, and then from the predictable characters in the Democratic Congress. Frankly, the platform was just fine, and it should have made the Israeli side very happy. The new language coming from 2008 is so inconsequential that—and so vague.
AMY GOODMAN: It started in 2008?
JAMES ZOGBY: No, no, no. They’ve actually had some language on Jerusalem. Other language, they dropped. Really offensive language about refugees, etc., they dropped, thank God. But the Jerusalem language is rather vague and inconsequential. And so, the notion of adding it and solving a problem, it doesn’t mean anything. What they’ve done is, they’ve frankly dumped on their own convention. I mean, today, we’re talking about this. We ought to be talking about Bill Clinton’s speech. And that was a huge blunder. I think it was a—not thought through. You can see from Villaraigosa’s face as he gets out there that—you know, what’s going on here? And three votes. At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: Because he could not figure out—I mean, how you determine—
JAMES ZOGBY: At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: —two-thirds of the delegates? Also, how many of the delegates were even there?
JAMES ZOGBY: They just assumed it was going to be a slam dunk, everyone was going to go. We’ve polled in the Democratic Party. Most Democrats do not support these positions. We’ve known this now for decades. And the fact is, is that they just should let it go, because raising it now means we’ll be talking about this for days yet to come.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it came out. It was in the platform in 2008. And then, what happened in 2012?
JAMES ZOGBY: Don’t know. They took some heat for the language of 2008, because, frankly, the president is supposed to be negotiating a peace process or involved in that. And the 2008 platform predetermined many of the issues of the negotiations about refugees and borders, etc. Wiser minds, I suppose, prevailed. So when we looked at the draft—and everyone looked at the draft. AIPAC and everyone saw the draft. The draft had language that was very supportive of Israel on the security and defense front, supportive of Israel on the—Israel is the—you know, our ally, etc., etc. And then it eliminated some of these predetermining of negotiated issues, like borders in Jerusalem, etc. Why now, after Romney complains and Paul Ryan? I didn’t know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wrote the Democratic Party platform. They didn’t have a voice. They weren’t on our committee. And yet, they reacted scared and did what sometimes the party does, which is make a mistake out of fear.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Democratic Congressmember Jerrold Nadler. Democracy Now! producer Mike Burke interviewed him inside the convention last night and asked him about the change in the platform and this extremely irregular vote—
JAMES ZOGBY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —that took place yesterday afternoon.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m very glad we did that. It was never a substantive issue, but it was entirely a political issue. And there’s no reason to open up a huge debate over—over a non-substantive issue. The fact of the matter is, it’s been the policy of this administration, and every prior administration going back I don’t know how many years, that the status of Jerusalem is what’s called the "final status issue." That means it’s supposed to be negotiated between the parties—that is, the Palestinians and the Israelis—before an agreement, and they both have to agree to it, which is a practical matter. Since Israel will never believe that Jerusalem isn’t its capital, Jerusalem is going to be its capital. Now, that does not mean, as several—as any number of schemes have said, that part of Jerusalem might not be the Palestinian capital also, and there might be shared—all kinds of arrangements which have been discussed from time to time. But to get into a fight over omitting language that says that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, which has been in previous platforms, and—is silly, because the practical consequences are zero. The reality is that the platform says and said, both the prior platform and the current platform, that we’d have a two-state—that we want a two-state solution with agreed-upon borders and so forth. And that means, as a practical matter, that—and again, since Jerusalem is a final status issue and everybody agrees on it, it’s got to be agreed upon. So, whether you have that language in the platform or not makes a political difference, because people are looking to try to make differences where there aren’t any, to try to make political points. But it has no practical significance. So there’s no point having a fight and giving the Republicans ammunition over something that’s meaningless.
MIKE BURKE: Now, what is the process? How was the platform drafted?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I don’t know. I mean, technically, I mean, there’s a platform drafting committee, and they hold hearings, and they draft. And I suppose there’s supposed to be a vote by the platform committee. And there could be minority and majority reports, which there weren’t, on this or anything else. But I didn’t hear about any of this. No one I knew heard about it 'til 5:00 yesterday. And the platform was printed and distributed on the seats. I'm not sure what the mechanism of changing it was. Now, technically, I mean, the rules that I read—and they may only have been summaries of rules—say that the platform committee can present majority-minority reports, the convention can vote on it. It doesn’t say anything about bringing up a new version from the floor. So, I’m not sure—now, they could have moved to suspend the rules. I’m not sure how it was done. But the whole thing—but the platform itself was adopted yesterday when no one was paying attention, and the amendment was passed when no one was paying attention. Not the most democratic of procedures.
MIKE BURKE: Now, when it comes to, you know, the issue of Israel and Palestine, where do you see the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: That’s very difficult to say, because it depends on what Mitt Romney really means, which one doesn’t know. Certainly, the president agrees that we ought to have a—that we have a negotiated two-state solution, that the boundaries of the two states are final status issues that should be negotiated and agreed upon. I presume, if asked, Romney would say the same thing. But no one’s talking about that very much. I mean, Romney just keeps saying the president is throwing Israel under the bus, without specifically—without saying specifically what he’s talking about. So, one really doesn’t know. And no one is really talking about the parameters of negotiations, because, unfortunately, there do not seem to be any great prospects for negotiations in the immediate future. And the more immediate issues are Iran’s nuclear—or presumed or potential nuclear capability, Hamas shooting rockets into Israel, the United States supplying defenses to that, military aid, intelligence aid and all those sorts of things, all of which Obama has been, from a pro-Israeli point of view, very strong.
MIKE BURKE: Now, I know a few hours ago there was a protest outside the Levine Museum of the New South. There was an AIPAC gathering inside. CODEPINK and several other groups were— REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m sorry. What?
MIKE BURKE: There was an AIPAC gathering at the museum.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yeah, I heard that.
MIKE BURKE: And there was a protest outside. The protesters were saying that AIPAC has too much sway on policy in Washington.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, they’re entitled to their opinion. I don’t know that that’s true. I mean, AIPAC has—AIPAC has swayed to the extent that it voices opinions which most people and most policymakers agree with in the first place, in general terms. And AIPAC—now, there’s a dispute over whether AIPAC knew about this platform change and—the change, that is, from four years ago. The change that was in yesterday is a document and agreed on it or not. Some people said they were—that their people were present in the public drafting sessions, which were all public, and that they didn’t raise any objection. Somebody, who’s quoted in the Washington Post, from AIPAC is saying that’s not true. So I don’t know.
MIKE BURKE: All right. I’m sure you’re busy.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: But let me say just one thing about AIPAC. AIPAC is a lobbying agency, representing a lot of American citizens. It is not a—despite its name, it’s not a PAC—doesn’t contribute—it’s "Public Action Committee," not "political action committee." It doesn’t give out campaign contributions or anything. But it does represent the views of a lot of people, and it has a certain amount of political sway. But it’s a—it’s a standard lobbying operation, grassroots lobbying operation, representing a lot of people. And it would have no strength to the extent that people disagreed with it.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Jerrold Nadler on the floor of the Democratic convention, interviewed by Democracy Now!’s Mike Burke. Well, last night, also on the floor of the convention, I ran into Congressmember Keith Ellison of Minneapolis, the first Muslim elected to Congress. I asked him to respond to the vote on changing the platform to include language that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Quite frankly, this is a final status issue, which should be negotiated between the parties. And I don’t know if it’s the proper place, in a Democratic or Republican platform, to identify where the capital of any foreign country should be. I mean, this is something that should be negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis. But we don’t say where the capital of Peru or Canada should be, so why—I don’t think it is the proper—I don’t think it’s the proper place for either party. But politics in the United States suggests that these things are going to be there. And so, the thing that bothers me the most is that, you know, look, Israel is an ally of the United States. Why should it be a political football such that Democrats and Republicans are trying to out-pro-Israel each other? This is a bad mistake and won’t lead to any good end. And we should—if we really want a platform position, it should be that we are going to work hard to help bring these parties together for a full, final and fair negotiation, not where a capital should be.
AMY GOODMAN: Another issue that was brought back in was the word "God."
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, the First—the First Amendment has a clause. The first cause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or abridge the free exercise thereof." I mean, the bottom line is, you know, the right—I mean, faith is an issue for individual Americans to decide for themselves. Again, it’s a political decision so that Republicans cannot say that Democrats are less religious than them, because we have allowed religion itself to become a political football, which is a very unfortunate thing. And I’m sad about it, quite frankly, that it’s in either one, or that we’re debating these issues, when we’re dealing—when, you know, you want to honor God—and I’m a person of faith—put people to work, heal the—take care of the poor, heal the sick. That’s what my faith tells me.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Keith Ellison, first Muslim member of Congress, speaking on the House floor yesterday of the convention here in Charlotte. I also spoke to Michigan delegate, the vice chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, Ish Ahmed, to get his response to Wednesday’s vote.
ISMAEL AHMED: One, we’re not happy with that, and we’re probably going to challenge it procedurally. The first, two-thirds of the delegates were not here. The first two votes, they clearly lost, and yet they brought it up for a third vote and passed it. Having said that, this platform is still better than 2008, because it doesn’t talk about an undivided Jerusalem, and so it leaves room for it to be the capital of both Israel and Palestine. And I think that that’s a good thing. I also feel good because our voice is being heard here. There are more Arab Americans here than any time in history—about 55 of us from my state. There is an affirmative action agreement to have 12 Arab Americans on the slate when we come here every year. So, we’re making real, real progress.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ish Ahmed, who is vice chair of the Democratic Party of Michigan, responding to this chaotic vote that took place yesterday afternoon on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. James Zogby is our guest, who’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. Your response to all of what you’ve heard? Let’s start with Jerrold Nadler.
JAMES ZOGBY: He’s right: the language is inconsequential. Where he’s wrong is that, procedurally, this was a huge embarrassment. And I think Keith Ellison is right: no good comes of this. The simple fact is, is that you don’t win any votes on one side, but you run the risk of losing votes on the other side. My community had been at this convention, came to this convention, as Ish noted, very excited. It was a record number, and we were treated with respect. Folks felt like they had literally gotten punched in the solar plexus by this procedural, very heavy-handed tactic that was used by the chair. Someone at a higher level in the party needed to think through how they did this and what the optics of it were. The optics were: "Oh, my god! Israel is upset! We’ve got to do it! Let’s do it. Oh, the delegates don’t care? I mean, they don’t support it? To hell with them! We’re going to do it anyway." That was really dumb. And that’s why we’re talking about it today. We’re not talking about whether Jerusalem ought to be the capital of Israel. We’re talking about how the party behaved. That was dumb.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama has taken responsibility. He says he pushed this through.
JAMES ZOGBY: I don’t know that. Look, I’ve been to the White House for now 30-something years, and every time some 21-year-old kid walks in the room, he says, "Oh, the president really wants me to express his deep regards to all of you, and the president is very committed to this." I just don’t know. When I hear President Obama speak on it, I’ll believe it. But tell me, did Barack Obama want the mayor of Los Angeles to go out and create this embarrassing situation? No. Could it have been handled better? Absolutely. Is Nadler right that the language doesn’t mean a damn thing? Because, ultimately, what the language says is that a united city—Palestinians want a united city. The capital of Israel? It’s going to be the capital of Israel. But it also is going to be the capital of Palestine. And sovereignty has to be shared between both parties. The platform doesn’t speak to any, it doesn’t rule out any of those things. It says it needs to be negotiated. I can live with the language. But the way it was done, I can’t live with that.
AMY GOODMAN: How does Mayor Villaraigosa, who has to hear people shouting "yea" and "nay" three times, determine on the third time, where you can’t hear a difference in decibel level, that two-thirds of those who were there, however many there were that were there at that early hour, have voted for the amendment?
JAMES ZOGBY: He actually doesn’t. What he goes into it is with the notion that "I’m going to pass this damn thing, no matter what happens." But I think that they were up-ended by the fact that there was such opposition on the floor. And, you know, I mean, Republicans sort of spun it as Democrats booed this. Democrats were upset about the procedure, went through the platform, past the platform. The committee met over the platform. To then sort of, "Oh, my god! Republicans are upset! We’ve got to change the platform," that’s what bothered people.
AMY GOODMAN: And Ted Strickland, who introduced it, the former governor of Ohio, was the head of the—
JAMES ZOGBY: The drafting committee, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —drafting committee of the platform.
JAMES ZOGBY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jim Zogby, I want to thank you very for being with us.
JAMES ZOGBY: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: President of the Arab American Institute and a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention. He’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, "Breaking With Convention." Back in a minute.
I'm actually with Rep. Keith Ellison on this...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 21:46:26
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/05 21:49:25
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The only booing I heard was when it was called as an "aye" when it seemed pretty evenly split between "aye" and "nay" to me. It must have seemed pretty evenly split to him as well since he did it 3 times.
You need your hearing aids check?
Ask yourself this... why did Villiargos felt the need to redo the vote three times?
Hey... man... I'm 'splaining to skyth that the Democrats ain't all sunshines and rainbows... He keeps sprouting some nonsense that there's nothing wrong with the DNC leaderships/structures.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! We are "Breaking With Convention." This is "War, Peace and the Presidency," covering the Democratic convention, inside and out. I’m Amy Goodman. The 2012 Democratic National Convention has entered its third day here in Charlotte. President Obama arrived here last night and is scheduled to accept his party’s nomination for a second presidential term tonight.
Democratic delegates held a surprise voice vote on the party platform yesterday afternoon. The convention invoked God and reinstated language from the 2008 platform describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In confusing scenes in the first moments of the convention proceedings on Wednesday, when many delegates were not present, a vote on the language was called three times, because of the large number of voices both for and against the motion. Despite loud objections from the audience, convention chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said he determined that two-thirds of delegates had voted in favor of the proposed changes. This is [Ted] Strickland, former Ohio governor and chair of the party’s platform [drafting] committee.
TED STRICKLAND: This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. As the chair, I come before you today to discuss two important matters related to our party’s national platform. As an ordained United Methodist minister, 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. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and our party’s platform should, as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing, and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: A motion has been made. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the—let me do that again. All of those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I—I guess—
UNIDENTIFIED: You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re going to do.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I’ll do that one more time. All those delegates in favor, say "aye. "
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative. The motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.
AMY GOODMAN: That was convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announcing the results of the surprise voice vote held on Wednesday afternoon at the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic Party had faced mounting criticism from Republican nominee Mitt Romney and others for omitting the reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan said, quote, "This is tragic. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Mitt Romney and I are very clear on this. ... What is so tragic about this is that this is one of the few issues where the Republican Party and the Democratic Party agreed," Paul Ryan said. Reports emerged shortly afterwards that President Obama had personally intervened to change the platform’s language back.
Well, to talk more about the significance of the vote, we’re joined now by James Zogby. He’s the president of the Arab American Institute, and he’s a superdelegate here at the Democratic National Convention, also a member of the convention’s platform committee.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JAMES ZOGBY: No cape, though. Superdelegate, but I don’t fly, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: OK. What does "superdelegate" mean exactly?
JAMES ZOGBY: It means we’re members of the Democratic National Committee, and we become automatic delegates to the convention.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you explain what took place yesterday afternoon, to the shock of people, I think, both in the convention center as well as people watching on television?
JAMES ZOGBY: Look, I’ve been dealing with platforms on the Middle East on this issue now for almost 30 years. They run scared, like Chicken Little, any time somebody raises a peep about the issue. I think, you know, the mounting criticism came from Republicans, and then from the predictable characters in the Democratic Congress. Frankly, the platform was just fine, and it should have made the Israeli side very happy. The new language coming from 2008 is so inconsequential that—and so vague.
AMY GOODMAN: It started in 2008?
JAMES ZOGBY: No, no, no. They’ve actually had some language on Jerusalem. Other language, they dropped. Really offensive language about refugees, etc., they dropped, thank God. But the Jerusalem language is rather vague and inconsequential. And so, the notion of adding it and solving a problem, it doesn’t mean anything. What they’ve done is, they’ve frankly dumped on their own convention. I mean, today, we’re talking about this. We ought to be talking about Bill Clinton’s speech. And that was a huge blunder. I think it was a—not thought through. You can see from Villaraigosa’s face as he gets out there that—you know, what’s going on here? And three votes. At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: Because he could not figure out—I mean, how you determine—
JAMES ZOGBY: At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: —two-thirds of the delegates? Also, how many of the delegates were even there?
JAMES ZOGBY: They just assumed it was going to be a slam dunk, everyone was going to go. We’ve polled in the Democratic Party. Most Democrats do not support these positions. We’ve known this now for decades. And the fact is, is that they just should let it go, because raising it now means we’ll be talking about this for days yet to come.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it came out. It was in the platform in 2008. And then, what happened in 2012?
JAMES ZOGBY: Don’t know. They took some heat for the language of 2008, because, frankly, the president is supposed to be negotiating a peace process or involved in that. And the 2008 platform predetermined many of the issues of the negotiations about refugees and borders, etc. Wiser minds, I suppose, prevailed. So when we looked at the draft—and everyone looked at the draft. AIPAC and everyone saw the draft. The draft had language that was very supportive of Israel on the security and defense front, supportive of Israel on the—Israel is the—you know, our ally, etc., etc. And then it eliminated some of these predetermining of negotiated issues, like borders in Jerusalem, etc. Why now, after Romney complains and Paul Ryan? I didn’t know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wrote the Democratic Party platform. They didn’t have a voice. They weren’t on our committee. And yet, they reacted scared and did what sometimes the party does, which is make a mistake out of fear.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Democratic Congressmember Jerrold Nadler. Democracy Now! producer Mike Burke interviewed him inside the convention last night and asked him about the change in the platform and this extremely irregular vote—
JAMES ZOGBY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —that took place yesterday afternoon.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m very glad we did that. It was never a substantive issue, but it was entirely a political issue. And there’s no reason to open up a huge debate over—over a non-substantive issue. The fact of the matter is, it’s been the policy of this administration, and every prior administration going back I don’t know how many years, that the status of Jerusalem is what’s called the "final status issue." That means it’s supposed to be negotiated between the parties—that is, the Palestinians and the Israelis—before an agreement, and they both have to agree to it, which is a practical matter. Since Israel will never believe that Jerusalem isn’t its capital, Jerusalem is going to be its capital. Now, that does not mean, as several—as any number of schemes have said, that part of Jerusalem might not be the Palestinian capital also, and there might be shared—all kinds of arrangements which have been discussed from time to time.
But to get into a fight over omitting language that says that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, which has been in previous platforms, and—is silly, because the practical consequences are zero. The reality is that the platform says and said, both the prior platform and the current platform, that we’d have a two-state—that we want a two-state solution with agreed-upon borders and so forth. And that means, as a practical matter, that—and again, since Jerusalem is a final status issue and everybody agrees on it, it’s got to be agreed upon. So, whether you have that language in the platform or not makes a political difference, because people are looking to try to make differences where there aren’t any, to try to make political points. But it has no practical significance. So there’s no point having a fight and giving the Republicans ammunition over something that’s meaningless.
MIKE BURKE: Now, what is the process? How was the platform drafted?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I don’t know. I mean, technically, I mean, there’s a platform drafting committee, and they hold hearings, and they draft. And I suppose there’s supposed to be a vote by the platform committee. And there could be minority and majority reports, which there weren’t, on this or anything else. But I didn’t hear about any of this. No one I knew heard about it 'til 5:00 yesterday. And the platform was printed and distributed on the seats. I'm not sure what the mechanism of changing it was. Now, technically, I mean, the rules that I read—and they may only have been summaries of rules—say that the platform committee can present majority-minority reports, the convention can vote on it. It doesn’t say anything about bringing up a new version from the floor. So, I’m not sure—now, they could have moved to suspend the rules. I’m not sure how it was done. But the whole thing—but the platform itself was adopted yesterday when no one was paying attention, and the amendment was passed when no one was paying attention. Not the most democratic of procedures.
MIKE BURKE: Now, when it comes to, you know, the issue of Israel and Palestine, where do you see the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: That’s very difficult to say, because it depends on what Mitt Romney really means, which one doesn’t know. Certainly, the president agrees that we ought to have a—that we have a negotiated two-state solution, that the boundaries of the two states are final status issues that should be negotiated and agreed upon. I presume, if asked, Romney would say the same thing. But no one’s talking about that very much. I mean, Romney just keeps saying the president is throwing Israel under the bus, without specifically—without saying specifically what he’s talking about. So, one really doesn’t know. And no one is really talking about the parameters of negotiations, because, unfortunately, there do not seem to be any great prospects for negotiations in the immediate future. And the more immediate issues are Iran’s nuclear—or presumed or potential nuclear capability, Hamas shooting rockets into Israel, the United States supplying defenses to that, military aid, intelligence aid and all those sorts of things, all of which Obama has been, from a pro-Israeli point of view, very strong.
MIKE BURKE: Now, I know a few hours ago there was a protest outside the Levine Museum of the New South. There was an AIPAC gathering inside. CODEPINK and several other groups were—
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m sorry. What?
MIKE BURKE: There was an AIPAC gathering at the museum.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yeah, I heard that.
MIKE BURKE: And there was a protest outside. The protesters were saying that AIPAC has too much sway on policy in Washington.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, they’re entitled to their opinion. I don’t know that that’s true. I mean, AIPAC has—AIPAC has swayed to the extent that it voices opinions which most people and most policymakers agree with in the first place, in general terms. And AIPAC—now, there’s a dispute over whether AIPAC knew about this platform change and—the change, that is, from four years ago. The change that was in yesterday is a document and agreed on it or not. Some people said they were—that their people were present in the public drafting sessions, which were all public, and that they didn’t raise any objection. Somebody, who’s quoted in the Washington Post, from AIPAC is saying that’s not true. So I don’t know.
MIKE BURKE: All right. I’m sure you’re busy.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: But let me say just one thing about AIPAC. AIPAC is a lobbying agency, representing a lot of American citizens. It is not a—despite its name, it’s not a PAC—doesn’t contribute—it’s "Public Action Committee," not "political action committee." It doesn’t give out campaign contributions or anything. But it does represent the views of a lot of people, and it has a certain amount of political sway. But it’s a—it’s a standard lobbying operation, grassroots lobbying operation, representing a lot of people. And it would have no strength to the extent that people disagreed with it.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Jerrold Nadler on the floor of the Democratic convention, interviewed by Democracy Now!’s Mike Burke. Well, last night, also on the floor of the convention, I ran into Congressmember Keith Ellison of Minneapolis, the first Muslim elected to Congress. I asked him to respond to the vote on changing the platform to include language that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Quite frankly, this is a final status issue, which should be negotiated between the parties. And I don’t know if it’s the proper place, in a Democratic or Republican platform, to identify where the capital of any foreign country should be. I mean, this is something that should be negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis. But we don’t say where the capital of Peru or Canada should be, so why—I don’t think it is the proper—I don’t think it’s the proper place for either party. But politics in the United States suggests that these things are going to be there. And so, the thing that bothers me the most is that, you know, look, Israel is an ally of the United States. Why should it be a political football such that Democrats and Republicans are trying to out-pro-Israel each other? This is a bad mistake and won’t lead to any good end. And we should—if we really want a platform position, it should be that we are going to work hard to help bring these parties together for a full, final and fair negotiation, not where a capital should be.
AMY GOODMAN: Another issue that was brought back in was the word "God."
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, the First—the First Amendment has a clause. The first cause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or abridge the free exercise thereof." I mean, the bottom line is, you know, the right—I mean, faith is an issue for individual Americans to decide for themselves. Again, it’s a political decision so that Republicans cannot say that Democrats are less religious than them, because we have allowed religion itself to become a political football, which is a very unfortunate thing. And I’m sad about it, quite frankly, that it’s in either one, or that we’re debating these issues, when we’re dealing—when, you know, you want to honor God—and I’m a person of faith—put people to work, heal the—take care of the poor, heal the sick. That’s what my faith tells me.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Keith Ellison, first Muslim member of Congress, speaking on the House floor yesterday of the convention here in Charlotte. I also spoke to Michigan delegate, the vice chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, Ish Ahmed, to get his response to Wednesday’s vote.
ISMAEL AHMED: One, we’re not happy with that, and we’re probably going to challenge it procedurally. The first, two-thirds of the delegates were not here. The first two votes, they clearly lost, and yet they brought it up for a third vote and passed it. Having said that, this platform is still better than 2008, because it doesn’t talk about an undivided Jerusalem, and so it leaves room for it to be the capital of both Israel and Palestine. And I think that that’s a good thing. I also feel good because our voice is being heard here. There are more Arab Americans here than any time in history—about 55 of us from my state. There is an affirmative action agreement to have 12 Arab Americans on the slate when we come here every year. So, we’re making real, real progress.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ish Ahmed, who is vice chair of the Democratic Party of Michigan, responding to this chaotic vote that took place yesterday afternoon on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. James Zogby is our guest, who’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. Your response to all of what you’ve heard? Let’s start with Jerrold Nadler.
JAMES ZOGBY: He’s right: the language is inconsequential. Where he’s wrong is that, procedurally, this was a huge embarrassment. And I think Keith Ellison is right: no good comes of this. The simple fact is, is that you don’t win any votes on one side, but you run the risk of losing votes on the other side. My community had been at this convention, came to this convention, as Ish noted, very excited. It was a record number, and we were treated with respect. Folks felt like they had literally gotten punched in the solar plexus by this procedural, very heavy-handed tactic that was used by the chair. Someone at a higher level in the party needed to think through how they did this and what the optics of it were. The optics were: "Oh, my god! Israel is upset! We’ve got to do it! Let’s do it. Oh, the delegates don’t care? I mean, they don’t support it? To hell with them! We’re going to do it anyway." That was really dumb. And that’s why we’re talking about it today. We’re not talking about whether Jerusalem ought to be the capital of Israel. We’re talking about how the party behaved. That was dumb.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama has taken responsibility. He says he pushed this through.
JAMES ZOGBY: I don’t know that. Look, I’ve been to the White House for now 30-something years, and every time some 21-year-old kid walks in the room, he says, "Oh, the president really wants me to express his deep regards to all of you, and the president is very committed to this." I just don’t know. When I hear President Obama speak on it, I’ll believe it. But tell me, did Barack Obama want the mayor of Los Angeles to go out and create this embarrassing situation? No. Could it have been handled better? Absolutely. Is Nadler right that the language doesn’t mean a damn thing? Because, ultimately, what the language says is that a united city—Palestinians want a united city. The capital of Israel? It’s going to be the capital of Israel. But it also is going to be the capital of Palestine. And sovereignty has to be shared between both parties. The platform doesn’t speak to any, it doesn’t rule out any of those things. It says it needs to be negotiated. I can live with the language. But the way it was done, I can’t live with that.
AMY GOODMAN: How does Mayor Villaraigosa, who has to hear people shouting "yea" and "nay" three times, determine on the third time, where you can’t hear a difference in decibel level, that two-thirds of those who were there, however many there were that were there at that early hour, have voted for the amendment?
JAMES ZOGBY: He actually doesn’t. What he goes into it is with the notion that "I’m going to pass this damn thing, no matter what happens." But I think that they were up-ended by the fact that there was such opposition on the floor. And, you know, I mean, Republicans sort of spun it as Democrats booed this. Democrats were upset about the procedure, went through the platform, past the platform. The committee met over the platform. To then sort of, "Oh, my god! Republicans are upset! We’ve got to change the platform," that’s what bothered people.
AMY GOODMAN: And Ted Strickland, who introduced it, the former governor of Ohio, was the head of the—
JAMES ZOGBY: The drafting committee, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —drafting committee of the platform.
JAMES ZOGBY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jim Zogby, I want to thank you very for being with us.
JAMES ZOGBY: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: President of the Arab American Institute and a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention. He’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, "Breaking With Convention." Back in a minute.
I'm actually with Rep. Keith Ellison on this...
So now you feel the need to lie about what I was sayin?
2015/10/05 22:35:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Does any of this really matter in 2015? Probably not.
Whembly has already decided he heard what he heard, despite what actually happened. There is no point in arguing about now.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/10/05 22:39:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well, in a slightly um... less sci-fi version of events, I believe Whembly honestly believes what he thought he remembered because that's literally what he remembers. Your mind makes stuff up all the time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 22:40:32
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/10/05 23:12:44
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: Well, in a slightly um... less sci-fi version of events, I believe Whembly honestly believes what he thought he remembered because that's literally what he remembers. Your mind makes stuff up all the time.
To be fair, it happens to the best of us...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 23:13:07
2015/10/05 23:14:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
As if the Democratic organization is the party of the sensible, sane party.
That's okay to have an opinion stating such things.... but, evidence supporting such is basically nil or weak sauce.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 23:29:44
