Thursday, September 6, 2012

Why the DNC, God, Jerusalem party platform debacle saddens me

If you haven't heard yet, there was a rather embarrassing moment at the DNC where Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for a public vote on last minute changes to the party platform to reinsert God and pro-Israel language. It took three tries to get the required two-thirds majority. From the Huffington Post:

Even though the no's were again as loud if not louder than the aye's on the third vote, Villaraigosa said he had determined that two thirds of those present had voted in favor. Boos filled the arena in response.
Within minutes, Republican National Committee staffers had uploaded the video to YouTube and were circulating it on Twitter.

First, this would never happen at the RNC. They would never air their dirty laundry in this manner. This shows how much less disciplined the Democrats are. If there's one thing you can say about Republicans, it's that they are loyal and fraternal. They know how to stick to a message, even if they personally disagree with it.

A co-chairman of the committee charged with drafting the Democrats' official party platform called it an "unfortunate omission." To me, what's a lot more "unfortunate" is that here, in 21st century America, to be successful, a major political party has to acquiesce to religious bullies.

Of course those on the right are running with this, which I can understand since it would play well with their base. But even those on the Democratic side state the "problem" as being that the "God" language was taken out in the first place. That is sad.

Conservatives go so far as to say the media are "covering it up." I love that. What's to "cover up?" How bad is it that here in 2012, excluding references to God equates to being immoral, anti-American, and downright evil. It didn't hurt the Founding Fathers to leave references to god or gods out of the Declaration of Independence, but 200 years later...

They refer to the Democratic Party as "The Party of Atheists, Homosexuals, Abortionists, and Muslims" like it's a bad thing. Really? So now, in 21st century America, a party defined as "good" has to exclude the non-religious (34.2 million, or 15% of Americans), the gay, the pro-choice (about half of all Americans), and non-Christians.

Face palm.

My theory on fact failure speeches

I think Paul Ryan, intentionally inserted bogus reality into his speech(es) because he knows the following:

  • Nobody cares. They like what he said, even if it isn't true
  • The people he is speaking to hate "fact checkers" considering them "elitist" so if those weenies attack their friend Paul Ryan, they consider it bullying and will defend him
In other words, Ryan wants the "fact checkers" to attack him because it only improves his standing with his base. He becomes a martyr for the cause of the intentionally ignorant in the fight against the "elite" intellectuals and nerds who want to destroy this country with their "facts" and "science" and whatnot.