Lot's of discussion over at Grim's about the three tries at a voice vote at the DNC. It sounded even to me all three times. However, as there were two items voted on at once, we don't know what the breakout would be.
There is much speculation how this will play among the electorate, that the Democrats "voted against God." Which they sorta did, but not really. There are lots of possible explanations behind both the aye and nay votes, but they didn't get to say those, just the single syllable. However, if it's an unfair question, I certainly didn't ask them to answer it. They did that to themselves.
I am more curious how it will play to loyal Democrats, who watched non-democracy play out in front of them when the chair called it a two-thirds vote and motion carried when it clearly wasn't. Certainly the losers must have had at least a momentary twinge, wondering if they were in some sort of corrupt organisation where their opinion didn't count and their betters made choices for them. But I would hope even the winners would pause and realise that they won unfairly, by cheating. In both cases, I hope for the scales to fall from some eyes: "these people aren't...aren't honest, honey. We have to get out of here."
I wonder who in the national media will press the issue of a clear 50-50 split among the delegates and the dishonest response to that.
Nah. Lost my head there for a moment.
Does Fox count as national?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting, too, that West's political ad focused on the loud "no" vote and ignored the chair's determination to deem the "yes" vote to be the required 2/3. It was the more striking because he tried three times and looked very uncertain there at the end, until someone off camera gave him some kind of signal to push it through anyway. I wonder if Julian Castro is feeling at all queasy about it now?
Our parliamentary procedures are fragile. I don't know how many meetings you've suffered through that used Robert's Rules, but they're eye-openers every time they depart from friendly, foregone-conclusion consensus. I used to do a lot of homeowner-association work in various communities. They sure opened my eyes to how unused most of us are to standing up to parliamentary bullying; I think there's tendency to assume that someone (police? school officials? The League of Women Voters?) will always be standing by to ensure that the majority voice prevails while the minority dissent gets a respectful hearing. I also was quite inspired when I read a book about Robert's Rules so I'd know how to conduct meetings. They're an invaluable guide to resolving public differences without violence and with a lasting sense of fairness, if they're used correctly.
West's ad focused on the vote rather than the face-saving fraud because the fraud was the mask the Democrats wish to present to the public. "See? We really do believe in God, you Jesus-addled slopeheads. Now vote the way you're told!"
ReplyDeleteThe "no" voice vote reveals who the Democrats really are. Remember that the convention isn't random voters: it's the party activists, the insiders, the present and future power brokers. They don't believe in anything but their own power, but they want the electorate to think otherwise.
I watched this vote unfold on TV. It was priceless democracy in action -DNC style. Funny as can be.
ReplyDelete"God? What are you talking about? WE are the Gods!"
Did you see the reason they called it as passed? The prompter had already called it a two-thirds majority before the vote even took place. The whole vote was a sham.
ReplyDeleteA SHAM, you say, Wyman? How.....judgmental of you!
ReplyDeleteCorrectomundo.