Post-Truth America: Now to the other side

[Preacher Man]

I'm not one to criticize one party over another for the use of half truths and exaggerations. I think this is not the result of ideology, but of human nature. That been said, there are those rare moments that get recorded for posterity when we actually see a clear and undeniable fact be treated as something relative in order to serve a political purpose. Such a moment occurred Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention.

The press had made a big issue of the fact that the approved new national platform of the Democratic Party makes absolutely no mention or reference to either God or Israel. Was this an oversight or a strategic move to mark the differences between Democrat and Republicans? Whether it was one or the other became irrelevant as the powers that be decided the platform needed to me amended to include the following statements:

Statement #1 "We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

Statement #2 "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

The video in the article I linked tells the story, but allow me to describe the scene. Both amendments were called to what seemed to be a perfunctory voice vote by the Convention Chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. As the parliamentary rules had to be suspended, and the request for presenting amendments had to be seconded, the floor had already shown through voice vote what a 2 thirds or more of the floor sounded like.

When the vote to approve the amendment was finally called for, the aye's were loud, but the no's were just as loud. Villaraigosa was clearly unprepared for such development and started to declare that the aye's have it when he stopped himself mid-sentence. To his credit, without missing a beat he call again for a vote, although this time speaking slowly as if some of the delegates had not clearly understood what they were voting for. The second time the no's sounded slightly louder than the aye's. Villarainosa was left speechless, visibly unsure of what to do next and started to look around for help. Eventually he called for a third vote. This time the no's were as loud as the aye's. The motion to amend the platform had been defeated since the motion required a 2 third majority to pass.

Enter the relativity factor. To the surprise of the floor, and a combination of a few applause and many loud boos, Villarainosa proceeded to announce that "In the opinion of the chair, 2 thirds have voted in the affirmative; the motion is adopted, and the platform is amended."

The Democratic National Convention platform adoption is supposed to be the time and place for the democrat constituency to express their opinions through their delegates. Voters speak and the politicians listen. That is not what happened Wednesday. Sure, the politicians already have a platform in place, but there is a reason they have a vote and allow for delegates to vote against a measure. The Chair shamelessly ignored the will of the delegates in order to impose what the leaders of the party had already decided needed to be done. The whole incident is embarrassing, to say the least. Republicans have already posted the video on youtube and I can only expect that it will feature prominently in a couple of republican political adds.

Politicians from all parties and ideologies fudge numbers and exaggerate facts. Sometime they even flatly lie about their accomplishments or policies. This has become so common place the we have fact-checkers giving the rest of us a rundown of the lies and exaggerations expressed by our esteemed representatives. But this is the first time I see the result of a democratic vote in an American political event stolen by the very people that are supposed to represent the voters.

Is this representative of Democrats as a party? I don't think so. I think it is representative of politicians. That been said, will most definitely come back to bite the democratic party on their collective behind. I can imagine undecided voters marginally leaning democrat, looking at this and deciding to reconsider their vote this coming November. I would like to know how different, if in any way, is the take of republicans and democrats regarding this incident.

[timcsaw]

I hope that Preacher Man doesn't mind if I "cross-post" this from the other thread that Lepto started. I do so because I think it's germane to this thread... spot on actually.

================================================== =================

I take it you aren't quibbling with my characterization of the convention. Do you think that type of cynical twisting of reality, by any party, is conducive to a healthy political process?

I anxiously await your written analysis of the Democratic Convention... I'm saving the above statement from you for future use and rebuttal.

I told you I'd need to refer to Lepto's comment above....

In light of the 2/3 majority vote taken during the "11th hour" at the Dem Convention when the Democrats voted to "Reinstate 'God-Given' And "Jerusalem As Israel's Capital" To Party Platform, let's look at hypocrisy in action, shall we?

First, it's interesting that the Democrats even had to ADD "God-Given" and "Jerusalem as Israel's Capital" TO their platform...

Second, it's interesting that they think that half the people yelling the affirmative vote of "YEA", are 2/3 louder than the (at least half) of the people yelling the dissenting vote of "NO"...

If you watch this video, it's quite clear that the vote was at least a tie, and at least half the people yelled "NO" when it was put up for a 2/3 vote... yet the motion to add these items to the Democrat Platform passed as the chair said it was a valid 2/3 majority vote... what a joke.

Who knew that 2/3 of the group yelling "YEA" was no louder than 1/3 yelling "NO"?

Watch the video and listen to the vote, and YOU tell me if it was a valid 2/3 majority and should have passed.... IMO, it's not even close. No matter the official result of the "vote" (LOL), it's clear that at least half of the Democrats who voted ("NO") did NOT want to add "God-Given" and "Jerusalem As Israel's Capital" to the Democratic Platform... big surprise right?

I'm sure that Lepto will be along shortly to add his own critisism to my own on this vote... "wait for it.........".

[timcsaw]

Fact checking Bill "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton's speech.

Lie, half-truth, lie, lie, lie, mistruth, lie mis-truth (his mouth was moving so....).

CLINTON: "When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. ...Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy and compromise is weakness. One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation."

THE FACTS: From Clinton's speech, voters would have no idea that the inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. Right from the beginning Obama brought in as his first chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along.

And then this;

CLINTON: Clinton suggested that Obama's health care law is keeping health care costs in check.

"For the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4 percent, for the first time in 50 years. So, are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are."

THE FACTS: That's wishful thinking at best. The nation's total health care tab has been growing at historically low rates, but most experts attribute that to continued uncertainty over the economy, not to Obama's health care law.

and this;

CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. ... I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."

THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.

Not to mention that HE didn't mention Obama's massive spending and the debt that OBAMA is responsible for RIGHT NOW!

Then there is this;

CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."

THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were "legally accurate" but also allowed that he "misled people, including even my wife."

Where's Lepto and why didn't he bring these criticisms forward for us?

[Kiah]

LOL. Voting by loudness.

Apparently our government is a Nickelodeon game show, and it's rigged.

[timcsaw]

Interesting that Bill "I did NOT have sex, yada, yada" Clinton didn't mention this fact based graph and that it was the DEMOCRATS who "owned" congress during the last 2 years of the Bush administration and that it was the DEMOCRATS who drove us into deficit spending like never before in the history of this country.

Odd that he wouldn't mention these facts isn't it?

obama-deficit-2011.jpg

[quietmike]

Odd that he wouldn't mention these facts isn't it?

Or the fact that he used tax cuts, welfare reform, and streamlining government to create the boom under his administration, polar opposite of Obama's approach.

[timcsaw]

LOL. Voting by loudness.

Apparently our government is a Nickelodeon game show, and it's rigged.

This wasn't "our government". This WAS ONLY Democrats and "the democrat conferees/delegates at their own convention"... and yes, it was "rigged" (the TELEPROMPTER that the chair was reading from ALREADY HAD the confirmation of 2/3 written on it as approved by the democrat powers that be).

It was initially a vote by voice as is common practice. However... it was obvious by the voice vote, that the chair SHOULD have taken it to a written vote don't you agree (unless like him, you think the final voice vote was 2/3 "yea's" and 1/3 "no's")?

The chair didn't do as he should have, but instead just read the TELEPROMPTER that was telling him what the democrat leadership wanted him to say.

Not only do the democrat leaders not care what the people of the entire country want (see Obamacare), they also don't care what their own Delegates want (as evidenced by this vote).

[Kiah]

This wasn't "our government". This WAS ONLY Democrats and "the democrat conferees/delegates at their own convention"... and yes, it was "rigged" (the TELEPROMPTER that the chair was reading from ALREADY HAD the confirmation of 2/3 written on it as approved by the democrat powers that be).

It was initially a vote by voice as is common practice. However... it was obvious by the voice vote, that the chair SHOULD have taken it to a written vote don't you agree (unless like him, you think the final voice vote was 2/3 "yea's" and 1/3 "no's")?

The chair didn't do as he should have, but instead just read the TELEPROMPTER that was telling him what the democrat leadership wanted him to say.

Not only do the democrat leaders not care what the people of the entire country want (see Obamacare), they also don't care what their own Delegates want (as evidenced by this vote).

Neither party cares what "the people of the entire country" want. They both play to a select few issues that divide people fairly evenly and neither have any issues being facetious dillweeds about it or invoking selective memories. I just saw the vid as an almost satirical representation.

While I'm aware that TELEPROMPTER has become a common hypocritical attack against democrats, both parties use them extensively. Romney and Ryan have plenty of love for the prompter. I'd go as far as to call it less sketchy than having your answers fed from an earpiece in real time, but I agree with Santorum (in all his hypocritical prompter using glory) that they're way overused.

[timcsaw]

Neither party cares what "the people of the entire country" want. They both play to a select few issues that divide people fairly evenly and neither have any issues being facetious dillweeds about it or invoking selective memories. I just saw the vid as an almost satirical representation.

While I'm aware that TELEPROMPTER has become a common hypocritical attack against democrats, both parties use them extensively. Romney and Ryan have plenty of love for the prompter. I'd go as far as to call it less sketchy than having your answers fed from an earpiece in real time, but I agree with Santorum (in all his hypocritical prompter using glory) that they're way overused.

I can't completely disagree...

[OliverH]

Fact checking Bill "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton's speech.

Lie, half-truth, lie, lie, lie, mistruth, lie mis-truth (his mouth was moving so....).

People who really have the truth and facts on their side don't have to preface their own selectively "fact-checked" propaganda with a paragraph full of insults. Just sayin'.

[BlackKnight86]

People who really have the truth and facts on their side don't have to preface their own selectively "fact-checked" propaganda with a paragraph full of insults. Just sayin'.

People who can refute "selectively 'fact-checked' propaganda" usually do so, instead of merely pontificating about an irrelevant side issue in order to distract or deflect.

Just sayin'.

[timcsaw]

People who really have the truth and facts on their side don't have to preface their own selectively "fact-checked" propaganda with a paragraph full of insults. Just sayin'.

You didn't read the link did you?

[panzertroop]

"I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton's speech.

Lie, half-truth, lie, lie, lie, mistruth, lie mis-truth (his mouth was moving so....).

People who really have the truth and facts on their side don't have to preface their own selectively "fact-checked" propaganda with a paragraph full of insults. Just sayin'.

How is what he said and insult? It's a true documented fact that Bill Clinton lied while in office. He is a liar by definition.

[russianpolander]

What I want to know is this: How can we be sure ANY of the political processes out there are real? Specifically, how can we be sure that votes count? Could it not be possible that it is predetermined just like the teleprompter snafu proves? Maybe they use all the polls right up to election day and go through the motions of "electing" someone to office just to put out their predetermined pick. Who is to say?

[jdm61]

AND a sexual harasser.........that's right......using your position as the head man to get into the pants of a dopey, starstruck 19 year old intern is sexual harassment. I am SURE that the folks at NOW would agree if Bill was a Repub.

How is what he said and insult? It's a true documented fact that Bill Clinton lied while in office. He is a liar by definition.

[Triton]

I find this whole side show quite entertaining.

Consider, last night a large percentage of the democrats at the convention spent their time booing God / Support for Israel and cheering a perjuror / adulterer / possible rapist.

A few days back we had a poster that suggested that one could not be a good Christian and not support governmental redistribution of wealth. I wonder if that same poster will now come back and suggest that one cannot be a good Christian and vote democrat.

[quietmike]

What I want to know is this: How can we be sure ANY of the political processes out there are real? Specifically, how can we be sure that votes count? Could it not be possible that it is predetermined just like the teleprompter snafu proves? Maybe they use all the polls right up to election day and go through the motions of "electing" someone to office just to put out their predetermined pick. Who is to say?

310336_343635892391125_1865296383_n.jpg

[Noctis3880]

Politicians from all parties and ideologies fudge numbers and exaggerate facts. Sometime they even flatly lie about their accomplishments or policies. This has become so common place the we have fact-checkers giving the rest of us a rundown of the lies and exaggerations expressed by our esteemed representatives. But this is the first time I see the result of a democratic vote in an American political event stolen by the very people that are supposed to represent the voters.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but this is actually the second time, and it was a trick the Democrats picked up at the RNC:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2...ntion_floor_as

I'm still waiting for people to finally realize that no one actually "represents" them, not on either side.

[timcsaw]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but this is actually the second time, and it was a trick the Democrats picked up at the RNC:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2...ntion_floor_as

I'm still waiting for people to finally realize that no one actually "represents" them, not on either side.

Oops a major difference in the two controversy... In the case of the Republicans, they actually USED one of their own rules (which some Paul supporters didn't like), and in the case of the Democrats, they BROKE one of their OWN existing rules (that at least half the Democrats present didn't like)... See the difference?

On EDIT: Though I am not happy with the rules changes, it was a majority vote (NOT 2/3, and a majority voted in the affirmative... If anything, as chair, I would have called a ballot vote). I do think the calls of "Point of order" should have been addressed by the chair and at LEAST he should have indicated that the calls were dilatory.

[timcsaw]

310336_343635892391125_1865296383_n.jpg

Maybe the democrats need to check those ID's at the door AGAIN for a second time (or third time).