God & Jerusalem at Charlotte

National conventions are the political equivalent of fashion shows. Unscripted moments, for better or worse, represent a loss of control. The Republicans had theirs the other night when Clint Eastwood briefly steered the stage right into the Twilight Zone. The Democrats had theirs tonight. Unlike the Eastwood moment, this one involved a question of substance.

I was baffled that the Democrats removed God and Jerusalem from their 2010 platform. Here, from The Hill, are the two passages from the 2008 platform that were removed from the one presented to this year's convention:

[W]e 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.

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.

Removing or amending the first passage to excise the word "God", changes nothing of substance. "God given" here could mean an expression of faith or just an old-fashion way of indicating innate talents. If it hadn't been there, there would have been no compelling reason to include it. Likewise, removing it accomplished nothing and ran the risk of offending some people and gave the Republicans a small issue. Call it a small, unforced error.

The second passage states a vital foreign policy position and one which the President has taken before. Removing that one surely looks like a policy change. If it doesn't indicate that, it was a major unforced error. If it does indicate that, the President might as well have boldly stated it in a campaign speech.

What happened is that the issue blew up in the face of the Obama campaign. This evening Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, apparently acting on orders from Mr. Obama, offered amendments to the platform reinstating the passages. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who was chairing the proceedings called for a voice vote. Two thirds ayes were required to confirm.

Villaraigosa apparently wasn't sure about the first round of ayes and nays and so called for a second vote and then a third. After the last one, he declared that the motion had carried. The Hill and The Politico confirm my impression after listening to two separate recordings: it was difficult to tell whether there were more ayes than nays.

Two things are apparent here. The first is bad. It was a major failure of leadership on the part of the Democratic Party's captain. Let us assume that he was not so out of the loop that he didn't understand what was in the platform. He approved of the initial excisions. Then Mr. Obama forcefully acted to disrupt his own convention in order to restore the excisions. This came at the cost of a manifestly fraudulent act. Mr. Villaraigosa could not have honestly concluded that two thirds of the conventioneers voted aye. When he declared that he did so, he cheated and insulted something like half of the delegates.  From the WaPo:

The vote was far from decisive, however, and angered many delegates who opposed the reinstatement of the language. Some stood up from their seats inside the Time Warner Arena, shaking their fingers at Villaraigosa.

The second is worse. While Mr. Obama has stated his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the past, it has been difficult to get any of anyone from the administration to confirm that position lately. That makes the initial excision of the Jerusalem language look like an inept attempt to sneak in a policy change without acknowledging it. His restoration of the excision confirms the view that any support Mr. Obama shows toward Israel is mere expediency in the domestic arena rather than any genuine conviction that Israel is strategically important to the U.S., let alone any fondness for our most loyal Middle East ally.

If Mr. Obama was considering a shift in policy regarding Jerusalem, we now know that such a move has strong support within the core of the Democratic Party. Those shouting nay to putting the Jerusalem language back in may have constituted half the delegates or even more than half. Allow me to suggest that they are not friends of Israel. That is one cat that the Democrats would have been advised to keep tightly tied up in the bag.

Comments

[duggersd]

This action comes from a party who's very name suggests democracy. This was anything but democracy. Was the vote preordained? You be the judge. http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/05/picture-snapped-and-emailed-to-me-by-a-colleague-from-the-clarification-process/ If I were a Democrat, I would be very ashamed of my party.

[jhm47]

Wednesday night was a gift to the Romney campaign. The speakers--- Fluke, who wants everyone else to pay for her to play, Elizabeth (Fauxahontas) Warren, Bill (I did not have sex with that woman), and to top it all off, a vote where the wishes of their own followers were ignored (in triplicate). If the undecideds can't see the hypocrisy of the Democrat party after this, nothing will open their eyes.

[Donald Pay]

A few years ago the Pope suggested that Jerusalem be turned into and international city, rather than a capital city controlled by any nation or religion or people. It made some sense that a city with profound importance to three of the world's religions would be governed by peaceful consensus rather than with military power of one. The Pope's suggestion also seemed to follow Biblical prophecy, which, if you believe it, would lead to the Second Coming of Christ.

Well, we won't have to worry about that now.

[larry kurtz]

What a wild ride: Romney/Ryan's christofascism got slammed by a nun!

Sister Simone Campbell had the crowd on its feet chanting and President Bill Clinton had women in the crowd wet with enthusiasm.

The Democratic Convention has been a celebration of women, no doubt about it. The sea of faces in the delegations was as multicultural as any in recent memory.

[larry kurtz]

Speaking of The American Holocaust: Pe 'Sla should be its home.

[A.I.]

The "God/Jerusalem" nit picking, red herring doesn't seem to be getting much traction anywhere beyond the Faux News echo chamber. Lets chalk this one up as another right-wing message distortion fail right up there with "we built this". The skeptic in me says no, but maybe, just maybe the media and, oh please, the public are starting to develop a right-wing B.S. filter.

[larry kurtz]

UN: Gaza expected to be literal uninhabitable scorched earth by 2020.

[Bill Fleming]

Making this argument is like playing Russian Roulette. The Israel/Iran situation is a powder keg. This is just fanning the flames of war for political purposes. If Israel bombs Iran in October because of something like this, the GOP neocon hawks (and that includes Leiberman) will have hell to pay, as they should.

The fact that there are a lot of Dems who don't support Netanyahu's belligerence should come as no surprise to anybody. What's surprising to me is that there are so many who do.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: it is not exactly "nit picking" to wonder whether Obama is committed to recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That is a real issue. Leaving it out of the original platform and then disrupting the convention to reinsert it means that Obama didn't consider it a "red herring." It is not unimportant that half of the Democratic convention opposed reinserting the Jerusalem language. It is not unimportant that the chair, after calling for three votes, fraudulently declared that the motion had carried. These things matter whether you would have voted aye or nay. I can well understand, however, why you wish to ignore them. Watch MSNBC instead of Fox and you can remain blissfully ignorant.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: what to do about Iran was not something that the Democratic conventioneers were called to vote on. Would that it were! Would you prefer Iran to have nuclear weapons? If you were living in Israel, would you consider it "belligerence" to be willing to use force to prevent that?

[Bill Fleming]

I'm not living in Israel, KB, and I prefer not to hand the Israelis the power to determine who becomes the next President of the United States. I don't think you read my post very carefully. Perhaps you'd do do me the favor of reading it again with your "thinking cap" on this time.

[duggersd]

So Bill, because you do not live in Israel, you do not care whether Iran lobs a nuke at them? Why will "neocons" have hell to pay when it is your fearful leader who had a chance to back a movement in Iran and neglected to do so? The Israelis have reason to be concerned about what Iran will do and they have reason to be concerned about what the US will not due under the lack of leadership of President Obama. As for not handing the Israelis the power to determine the next President of the United States, that is not the case here. Yes, people in Israel are going to have a preference. And yes, people in the US will consider whether the person abandoning Israel is a reason to vote for the opposition. But that does not give Israel any more power than it does when Putin says he could work with Romney but would prefer Obama who will, of course, have less reason to stand up to the Russians in a second term.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, maybe Dugger's stupidity can serve as a cure for yours. I'll let you tell him who the American public would prefer to have as president should Israel bomb Iran in October.

[larry kurtz]

Still waiting for an RNC bounce? GOP tool, Rasmussen: Obama up by two.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/how-tell-if-your-religious-liberty-be