Friday, September 07, 2012

Obama Corrupts the Democratic Process -- At His Own Convention!

There is an obvious explanation for what happened after the DNC parliamentarian spoke to the DNC Convention Chairman, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, during the voice-vote fiasco over the changes rammed into the Democrat Party Platform on Wednesday.

What the Chairman wanted was "More Cowbell" from the delegates.  But it just never came.

Sadly, it also makes very clear how Barack Obama managed to even corrupt the operation of the democratic process at his own nominating convention!

Having replayed and listened to that portion of the clip a few times, it is also pretty clear what the Parliamentarian said to the Chairman, just before his "ruling" on the "voice vote" motion to amend the party platform.

She said to him, "You've got to rule and then you've got to let them do what they're going to do."

On Thursday morning, Setember 6th, both David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett went on Charlie Rose's special morning show to give a "joint" interview, as part of the run-up to the Obama acceptance speech to be delivered that night, and as an opportunity for them to rehash the significance of Bill Clinton's nominating speech that had been delivered the night before their interview.

Right at the end of that exchange of otherwise friendly flummery, Charlie Rose suddenly asked about the "change" of the language in the platform that had taken place, (see, CBS video of the interview, beginning at 5:29), which had received so much attention as a result of the posting of the video of that portion of the convention in a YouTube clip featuring the actual taking of the voice vote, as had been televised on C-SPAN.

Rose carefully phrased his question so that it addressed only the language that dealt with the status of Jerusalem, and he did not mention the corresponding platform change that had eliminated any reference to God.  He asked it in the context of the omission of the language stating that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel.

So, here is what Rose asked:  

Rose: "Why was it necessary for the President to have to make a phone call to change what the platform had said about Jerusalem?'

Suddenly, facial expressions changed all around the table -- including the look on Norah O'Donnell's face, as she drew back in her chair from what had been, up until that moment, all smiles and happy banter with the President's two top advisers!

Jarrett offered the first volley in response, simply saying that the president had just wanted the document to reflect what it had previously said.

Jarrett: "Well, he just thought it was important to put, uh, back in what has been in the platform -- Jerusalem being the capitol -- um, uh, and so he put it back in. I don't, I think ..."

Rose interrupted her with the obvious follow-up:  

Rose: "He didn't know it was not in?

It was then that the two "deep" White House insiders -- Axelrod and Jarrett -- proceeded to claim that President Obama had not been previously aware of those changes to the wording of the party platform prior to it's final adoption by the delegates on Tuesday evening -- i.e., that is, they said he had not been aware of the language changes taking out of any reference to God, and the elimination of the language recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

In fact, Jarrett and Axelrod each told Charlie Rose and Norah O'Donnell that Obama had been unaware of those platform changes until Wednesday.  And Axelrod specifically added that Obama had ordered that the changes to be reversed -- (See the YouTube clip and key portion of the transcript, as embedded at HotAir)

We pick up the conversation exchange with Charlie's follow-up question:

. . .
CHARLIE ROSE: He didn’t know it was not in?

VALERIE JARRETT:  He — he was not aware –

DAVID AXELROD: Honestly, Charlie, he had, you know, he was counting on others to — he has some other duties, and responsibilities.  So, when he learned that what had been in the platform had been taken out, he said, "Put it back in."

ROSE: He learned yesterday?

. . .
Obviously, Antonio Villaraigosa, as the Chairman of the DNC Convention, had therefore been ordered sometime Wednesday -- after the firestorm of criticism that swept Twitter and other social media during the day -- to get that language back in, via orders from President Obama.

So, the "democratic" vote that was taken by the Convention on Wednesday night was really a complete sham -- it was a "show" of process intended for public consumption.  But the result was already fixed.  The Chairman knew what he had to do.  He was under orders to make that change.  And he did, in spite of the obvious failure of the vote!

I doubt very much that the Parliamentarian knew that the Mayor was going to rule the way he did.  I think that what she was doing was telling him that he couldn't keep hesitating -- that he had to issue a "ruling" on the voice vote, and then let the delegates react, whether that meant cheering, remaining silent, protesting, booing, challenging the ruling of chair, etc.

Of course, Chairman Villaraigosa had obviously been hoping against hope that the delegates in support of the motion would out-shout the nay-sayers.  That was why he kept taking votes.

But they never did.  The Chairman kept failing to get the "more cowbell" he was pleading for with those multiple redos.

Again, what the Parliamentarian said to him right before he took that third voice vote was: "You've got to rule and then you've got to let them do what they're going to do."

So, it was the action of Barack Obama, having ordered that the "change" be made, that corrupted the democratic process at the Democratic National Convention. 

And it was Villaraigosa "ruling" against the obvious failure of the motion to carry on a "voice vote" that closed the deal on that obvious sham.

Americans now have proof positive of the corrupting action of the President, taken against the will of the delegates attending his own party's nomination -- of him!


At 6:55 PM, September 10, 2012, Anonymous Thomas O. Meehan said...

It's always ugly when the mask slips.

At 5:30 PM, September 11, 2012, Blogger Trochilus said...


Yes. Isn't it though!

It was consistent, however, with his recent unilateral gutting of work-fare requirements for welfare recipients, and his earlier appointments of a slew of Tsars to skirt (or outright avoid) the Senatorial confirmation process.

Most of those "ministers without approbation" were placed during the first two years of his administration, when he actually should have had considerably less difficulty securing confirmations. But a few of them were so controversial that it was pretty obvious why he employed that "process" -- e.g., Van Jones.

The workfare shift caused only a slightly less muted stir in the media.

At 12:56 AM, September 15, 2012, Blogger Thomas O. Meehan said...

The Republicans missed an opportunity in the matter of those work requirements. They should have agreed with the President. Under his administration there are so few jobs that the welfare types had no chance of finding employment. They will only get back to work under an administration that values work in the first place.

At 6:14 PM, September 16, 2012, Blogger Trochilus said...

I understand the point you are trying to make, Tom, but I disagree . . . strongly.

It is his utter disregard for constitutional process that has characterized primarily the second half of his Administration.

No budgets for an even longer period; no meaningful negotiations over a slew of substantive topics; outrageous power grabs . . . the guy simply has no respect for the process and believes in the end that he will get enough public and media support to get away with it.

He made no effort to bring the Republicans to the table and hammer out agreements, as Clinton did following the '94 election on. Clinton loves to boast that he balanced the budget, but he did because the Republicans in the House made him do it, and it was good for the country. This guy just arrogantly put us into a second downgrade.


Post a Comment

<< Home