There is one thing that I have found amusing that happened today, 3/5/12, in the DNC Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Here is the video of what I am talking about that I thought was funny.
I love it. “Let me do it again.”. You know he had that stupid face when that happened. “Whhaahh?”
Now here is the funny thing, besides that fiasco at DNC, which is sort of similar to the one at RNC. There was a vote on making something explicit in their party platform and finalizing what is in their party platform.
Here are those two things:
“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.” Amendment 1 Page 32, Line 48 .
“Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter of final status negations. It should remain an undvidived city accessible to people of all faiths.” Amendment 2 Page 63, Line 26
Now the person who brought the amendments to come to a vote to be put on the DNC platform, and also be finalized, brought up God and being a part of the party. It is not really stated that way in the amendments, besides God given potential. Israel is also brought up and Jearusalem is the officially recognized capital Israel. It is also to remain an undivided city where all faiths can go.
Now I first saw this on Huffington Post and I was surprised by the headline, which said “Big Cave”. I was wondering what did the DNC cave in on during their convention? So I clicked on the “Big Cave” and it leads to the story titled “Democrats’ Efforts To Reinsert ‘God’ And ‘Jerusalem’ Into Platform Met With Loud Opposition (VIDEO)“. Well, once you start to read through the article, you find they only give one passing mention of the ‘God’ part and mostly talk about ‘Jerusalem’. Now, there were only two amendments, and if you thought any of those individual amendments should not be added to the final DNC platform, you vote no. You even vote no if you dislike both of them. So lots of people voted no, but where they voting no for the ‘God’ part or the ‘Jerusalem’, or both?
The Huffington Post article talks a lot about the Jerusalem part. What makes them think that it was the Jerusalem issue at all, for all those who voted no?? Either all of them voted no on the ‘God’ amendment or some of them voted no on the ‘God’ amendment. Either all of them voted no on the ‘Jerusalem’ amendment or some of them voted no on the ‘Jerusalem’ amendment. The article is basically implying that it was the ‘Jerusalem’ amendment that was getting all the no’s. The Huffington Post article even said that President Obama had to step in to have these two amendments added to the platform. This is not the only “news” outlet that is focusing on the same thing.
Side note which I find amusing as well. Now what gets me is that President Obama is already President, and he can recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel already. He did not need to have it mentioned in the platform. So this could be a political ploy of trying to get something unpopular in his party to be passed by associating it with something popular in the party. Now either those who voted no thought one amendment was acceptable and the other was not, or both were not acceptable. Which one was he trying to get passed to be accepted by those in his party, and which one did the party disagree with?