MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Monday, October 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 56.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Bludgeon » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:02 pm

Watch these three DNC videos and tell me what you think:

DNC Platform Vote wrote:Jerusalem And God Vote Gets Booed At Dem Convention



cnn wrote:Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "Well, really, it was essentially a technical oversight. President Obama, because he personally believes that Jerusalem is and always should remain the capital of Israel, he made sure we amended the platform so it would reflect his personal view, as well as reflect the language that we had in the platform in 2008."

Wasserman Schultz uses the excuse that the platform was "many pages long":

CNN reporter: "How was it overlooked?"

Wasserman Schultz: "You know, look, platforms are many pages long. The bottom line is that we've taken steps. We've amended it. President Obama felt it was important to reflect his person view and it's done and we're moving forward and continuing this convention."


CNN wrote:Anderson Cooper: Wasserman Schultz In An "Alternate Universe"


This will not be the first time Anderson Cooper has expressed amazed incredulity at the DNC chair.

Really I'm an atheist so I don't care about the religious part of it. I guess I just wonder how they expect your average American to watch the boos upstage the yeas on the Jerusalem/god vote, and find some way to believe that any Democrat in this environment even remotely represents their views.

Seems like a lot of the progressive wing are tired of being in the closet about how much they hate the rest of the country.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Sandi » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:12 pm

I have watched conventions for years. One thing that I have learned about both party conventions is that the delegates are there for one thing, and one thing only. To cast their nominating vote. Period.

Anything else is run wholly by the party elites.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby david cohen » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:30 pm

Every conservative I know is pissed off about the DNC, a political football (Jerusalem) and a fantasy (God)....what a great fucking country we live in!
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Bludgeon » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:42 pm

david cohen wrote:Every conservative I know is pissed off about the DNC, a political football (Jerusalem) and a fantasy (God)....what a great fucking country we live in!


I'm not pissed about the convention. In fact I'm looking forward to the series of thinly veiled and tongue in cheek insults from a president I like toward a president I don't. Everything good he can say about himself (like cooperating with the other side at the moment) just makes the sitting POTUS look worse. Just him being on stage casts the sitter in a negative light. I like how he always pulls his left ear when he says something he doesn't mean.

People watching this - their first thought is "Too bad I can't vote for him. That would be great."
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby pjbogart » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:52 am

For those who didn't bother watching the video, I encourage you to do so. Bludgeon's description of booing isn't very accurate, but you can't blame him much because that's the title Real Clear Politics put on the article.

Basically, the Democratic platform was criticized for failing to acknowledge God as our creator and Jerusalem as Israel's capital. An ordained minister got up and offered the amendments and when the DNC chair held a voice vote it sounded as though it was roughly even between ayes and nos. Akwardly, he held the vote several times, apparently hoping that those opposed would be cowed and stand down, but they just shouted louder each time. The chair then made the bizarre statement that in his opinion the amendments were adopted by two thirds majority. That's when you heard some boos.

I think the amendments were being booed in part, but I think the process was more likely what made people angry. Democrats could have avoided the situation by including the provisions in the original platform, as people were unlikely to reject the entire platform on the basis of two controversial provisions. The fact that they were not included does not seem accidental and the amendments were likely the result of criticism and political calculation.

Another political calculation is calling Wasserman Schultz a "dog faced liar". Her statements on the subject are pretty much plain vanilla political speak. It's not like she got up and lied about what someone said or purposely fudged dates in order to make an unfounded accusation. She said that the President wanted the platform amended to reflect his views and whether you believe that those are his views or not, calling it a lie would make all of politics pretty much a big lie-fest. I guess I'd have sympathy for the position.

Had I been there I would have voted "no" as well. People are welcome to be religious if they choose, but it should be separate from politics and therefore acknowledgement of God in the party platform is inappropriate. The controversy surrounding the city of Jerusalem is an issue between Israelis, Palestinians and other Arab countries who also value Jerusalem as a holy city. The amendment was offered simply to placate a segment of the population, Jews and Christians, who feel the need to insert themselves into that controversy. I have no problem with politicians expressing their views on Jerusalem, but codifying it in our party platform is wholly inappropriate. Personally, I don't care if Jerusalem burns to the ground tomorrow. Perhaps it would relieve some tension in the region.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6169
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby HawkHead » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:57 am

I like her politics and I think she could be much better in framing why things were done.

That aside, why is either party putting a plank in about where the capital of another country should be? Could you see China saying that LA should be the capital of the USA because it has a great Chinatown and is closer to Bejing? Maybe San Fran?

As to the political use of god, I am a Christian and I don't think there is any reason for God to be mentioned in either parties platform. Does God truly love the USA more than any other country? If he is God of the Universe and create all life and gave humans free-will how can he like one country more than another country? Does God need to have his name in a platform before he will smile down on the USA? If God can see into mens' hearts and judge their character why do we need to write God into a document for his protection/blessing?
HawkHead
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Ned Flanders » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:09 am

Bubba is such a jovial, confident liar that you just sit back and giggle.

Barry is a brittle, insecure narcissist so he's not very entertaining.
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13346
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Mean Scenester » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:47 am

Ned Flanders wrote:Bubba is such a jovial, confident liar that you just sit back and giggle.

Barry is a brittle, insecure narcissist so he's not very entertaining.

Whereas Romney is a Swiss bank underwritten hairbot, so if you don't like his take on things you can always just upgrade his firmware. Clearly, they do it all the time.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:15 am

HawkHead wrote:
That aside, why is either party putting a plank in about where the capital of another country should be? Could you see China saying that LA should be the capital of the USA because it has a great Chinatown and is closer to Bejing? Maybe San Fran?


It's well-known that the Chinese support the U.S. capital moving to Memphis. :)

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/ ... 2/06/53048

Why would a political party include the location of the capital of Israel in it's platform? It's not a silly or trivial matter, it's a foreign policy position. Not every country has agreed to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It's a statement of where the U.S. ought to take a stand among the countries of the world. There's clearly a lot of division among the Democrats whether to support Israel or not. I think the only really questionable issue is that the resolution was adopted without a clear indication of support by the delegates. It seemed more or less evenly divided and to say that two-thirds of the delegates supported it was arbitrary. I guess that's "how democracy works" there.

I don't think statements about god are particularly good policy in political parties either. But it goes to show that both parties will kowtow to certain things to keep a certain element of the population happy.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby scratch » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:02 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I don't think statements about god are particularly good policy in political parties either. But it goes to show that both parties will kowtow to certain things to keep a certain element of the population happy.


Including that certain element of the population that belongs to the NRA?
scratch
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:00 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Sandi » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:13 pm

Platforms are not a necessity for either party, and I think are used to speak to their base, and get digs in at the other party.

The republicans were the first to put God in their platform: to speak to their evangelical base. The democrats not wanting to look un-christian added it to thiers ( in 2004? ) probably to keep republicans from calling them anti-Christianity.

However this Rasmussen Report says a lot about religion and political party.

Among those who rarely or never attend church or other religious services, Obama leads by 22 percentage points. Among those who attend services weekly, Romney leads by 24. The candidates are even among those who attend church occasionally.

Romney leads by seven among Catholic voters and holds a massive lead among Evangelical Christians. [Ed.: Remember when one of the chief worries about Romney's candidacy was that evangelicals wouldn't support a Mormon?] Among other Protestants, the Republican challenger is ahead by 13. Among all other Americans, including people of other faiths and atheists, Obama leads by a 62% to 26% margin.


What can we draw from that? The Democrats are not much for church going, so it is no surprise that the noes were as loud as the yeas.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:37 pm

Dangerousman wrote:There's clearly a lot of division among the Democrats whether to support Israel or not. I think the only really questionable issue is that the resolution was adopted without a clear indication of support by the delegates.


That's the dog faced lie in question. The DNC called an oral vote; the yeas were not louder than the nays any of the three times they called it, but the nays were louder than the yeas at least once. Yet she says without a tinge of guilt that there was no dischord in the room. She also says that god and Jerusalem were omitted accidentally because the platform is "many pages long", and that's what got Anderson Cooper laughing again.

And, mayor whats-his-face (on the stage) said that in his opinion he heard a 2/3rds majority, which was plainly bullshit.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Bland » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:39 pm

Bludgeon wrote:dog faced lie

Wait......is the lie dog faced or is Wasserman Schultz dog faced?
And what in the heck do you think that phrase means anyway?
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:41 pm

Bland wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:dog faced lie

Wait......is the lie dog faced or is Wasserman Schultz dog faced?


Yes.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Wasserman Schultz: Dog Faced Liar

Postby Bland » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:47 pm

I am seriously asking: What does the phrase "dog faced" mean to you?
To me, in this context, it's meaningless. So please clarify.
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Next

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar