God, Jerusalem, and the Democratic Convention
In a move that probably took a lot of people by surprise, the DNC put God back into their platform along with language affirming Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel today. C-SPAN video of the proceedings is here.
Disclosure: I am a Christian, and I am pro-Israel so this is a platform change of which I approve. That said, I am quite surprised at how, well, undemocratically this change was carried out.
In the video, Mayor Villaraigosa had to call for the vote three times before seeming to decide that he was going to approve the platform change whether there'd been a two-thirds aye vote or not. Obviously this platform change was a matter of major contention among the delegates. I am very surprised that a more formal vote was not carried out, given how divided the Convention seemed to be on the matter. And while I realize that these things take time, isn't this sort of boring, in-house housekeeping the actual reason these conventions happen in the first place? I know we like to pretty them up with balloons (unless we're Democrats) and confetti and music and whatever, but that stuff happens all the time. Hashing out the platform, on the other hand, doesn't come around just whenever.
I suppose, given the way they rammed through Obamacare without concern for what the country wanted, I shouldn't be too surprised, but I didn't figure they'd go all petty-dictator on one another. I would, honestly, have been disappointed in the party (more than I already am, anyway) had these changes not been made. But the way they were made feels dishonest and forced. Where do Democrats really stand on these issues and why didn't they take a more careful vote?
Edit: I have unscreened the comment by "Stan Chaz." Mods, he's your call. ;)
Disclosure: I am a Christian, and I am pro-Israel so this is a platform change of which I approve. That said, I am quite surprised at how, well, undemocratically this change was carried out.
In the video, Mayor Villaraigosa had to call for the vote three times before seeming to decide that he was going to approve the platform change whether there'd been a two-thirds aye vote or not. Obviously this platform change was a matter of major contention among the delegates. I am very surprised that a more formal vote was not carried out, given how divided the Convention seemed to be on the matter. And while I realize that these things take time, isn't this sort of boring, in-house housekeeping the actual reason these conventions happen in the first place? I know we like to pretty them up with balloons (unless we're Democrats) and confetti and music and whatever, but that stuff happens all the time. Hashing out the platform, on the other hand, doesn't come around just whenever.
I suppose, given the way they rammed through Obamacare without concern for what the country wanted, I shouldn't be too surprised, but I didn't figure they'd go all petty-dictator on one another. I would, honestly, have been disappointed in the party (more than I already am, anyway) had these changes not been made. But the way they were made feels dishonest and forced. Where do Democrats really stand on these issues and why didn't they take a more careful vote?
Edit: I have unscreened the comment by "Stan Chaz." Mods, he's your call. ;)