Samhain
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 2,131
- Location
- Northern Ohio
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
CHARLOTTE, N.C.—After coming under fire for omitting language describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Democrats at their national convention Wednesday swiftly reinserted the language in an attempt to defuse Controversy on the eve of President Barack Obama's speech accepting his party's nomination.
Convention delegates, by a voice vote, approved a resolution restoring language the party had put in its 2008 platform, as well as earlier ones, referring to Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state. But the vote was disputed. Three separate voice votes were called, and only after the third was the issue declared decided—and some delegates then booed.
The delegates also approved language reinserting a reference to God into the platform's language. The lack of such a reference also had opened the platform to attacks from conservative activists.
The convention's move came after extensive discussions Wednesday with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, and other Jewish organizations over the platform language, a congressional official said. It represented a rapid move to end a controversy that seemed to catch Democratic officials flat-footed.....
Just in: Democrats update platform with Jerusalem, God reference – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Jerusalem And God Get Booed At Dem Convention | RealClearPolitics
Described by CNN as "Convention floor chaos" when it was announced that references to God and references affirming support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Ouch.
I'm starting to think the DEMOCRAT convention is going to fire up the GOP voters more than the Republican convention did.
based on the reaction to the rule being adopted, it sounded like more positive sounds than negative sounds, telling me that it was probably an ok ruling.
These things are so subjective though, crap like this should be a formal vote to avoid these kinds of issues anyway.
So really, who can tell.
based on the reaction to the rule being adopted, it sounded like more positive sounds than negative sounds, telling me that it was probably an ok ruling.
They needed two-thirds, not a majority.
But yes, it should have been a formal vote.
No way in hell that got a 2/3 vote... Watch it for yourself:
I know, but if we are going to gauge things on sound, than, we need to look at all the evidence.
The vote's what mattered; it certainly didn't sound like a 2/3 majority said "aye."
But even if "more positive sounds than negative sounds" was the reaction, that's not two-thirds, so the "evidence" still goes against it.
Ted Strickland of Ohio moves to reinstate "God" and "Jerusalem" back into the Democratic Party Platform. They get through the procedural (voice) vote, and then call a vote to re-insert the language.
This requires a two-thirds voice vote.
I think the chair called it the way he wanted to and not how the voice vote actually went. I'm not alone. It certainly sounded like the NOs had a majority, let alone the AYEs having two-thirds.
Harshaw, its called evidence. If people were pissed off, they would act pissed off. Because they weren't pissed off at the ruling, than that gives evidence towards how people may have voted. If there were a stronger negative reaction, it would mean more people voted nay as opposed to fewer people voting nay but being louder.
Because the vote was unknowable and all we have is "it sounds like this ..." which is a terrible thing to ascribe evidence to, but which you are doing, look to other activities to support your statement is all.
I would say the loud booing at the end was a pretty strong reaction....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?