THIS is so typical of the repiglicans and tea-baggers, always the victims, always being attacked, always getting the short end of the stick, always being unfairly picked on, persecuted, prosecuted, and maligned. Quick, somebody call them a waaambulance!!! Poor things! I gladly pass this on from HuffPost, joining in the "abuse" of mitt robme, lyin' paul ryan and their cabal.....
Predictably, the Romney campaign and its apparatchiks at Fox News accused the Democrats of lacking "civility" during the first day of their convention. RNC chairman Reince Priebus called the Democrats "classless" for showing a 1994 video of Ted Kennedy debating (and embarrassing) a decidedly more liberal Mitt Romney.
Boo-hoo.
You know who shouldn't be lecturing the Democrats about civility? The
people who gave us swift-boating, the Southern Strategy, the outing of
Valerie Plame, Birthers, Reverend Wright videos around the clock, "Obama
pals around with domestic terrorists," the exploitation of 9/11,
comparing a triple amputee Vietnam veteran to Saddam Hussein, the booing of a gay soldier, and the party that sported Purple Heart band-aids
at the 2004 convention to mock another decorated Vietnam veteran, John
Kerry, who was wounded in combat. And no one on the floor of the
Democratic convention hurled peanuts at an African American camerawomen, shouting, "This is how we feed the animals."
Yes, the Democratic speakers unapologetically jabbed Romney for
having a Swiss bank account and for being a shameless prevaricator. They
criticized his policy proposals for being the usual Reaganomics
claptrap we've heard during every election and, accurately enough, how
the same policies caused the recession. There's a difference between
taking fair shots at an opponent and the reprehensible tactics routinely
exercised by the Republicans.
I totally get it: since the dawn of history, politics has always been
about rigorous debate, passionate arguments, salient framing and
rhetorical aggression. That's not incivility. That's politics. But the
Republicans always appear shocked whenever the Democrats bring their
A-game to political contest, and then they hilariously lean on this
well-worn "civility" crutch with full knowledge that the party's PR
wing, AM talk radio and Fox News Channel, has made a fortune in cash and
ratings by calling the president a communist, a traitor and a "little black man child."
The Democratic Party finally and thankfully stood up for its values
and, most noticeably, its position on social issues. The party was
unafraid to feature leaders from NARAL and Planned Parenthood on the
stage. Various speakers talked repeatedly about reproductive rights,
civil rights, LGBT rights and the role of government and how "we the
people" ought to lend a hand to those who have nowhere else to turn.
Core liberal values. Likewise, the party made it clear that Mitt Romney
and the Republicans are the enemy of these values. And they are. They've
pledged to repeal all of the advances in these areas upon arriving at
the White House. Last night, an actual undocumented worker named Benita
Veliz -- an illegal immigrant, the latest brand of "evildoer" -- spoke
at the convention. On top of that, right-wing lightning rod Sandra Fluke
spoke during prime time and thanked the Democrats for "amplifying" her
voice in spite of brutal attacks from Rush Limbaugh and others who not
only lied about her testimony to Congress but publicly and relentlessly
slandered her reputation for weeks, calling her a "slut."
Tell me again about civility, Republicans.
Frankly, I think this notion of taking a firm stand on core values
hit really close to home for the Republicans who've nominated a
candidate whose positions change by the day, interspersed with
universally debunked lies. Simply put: Romney and Ryan don't seem to
stand for anything -- you know, other than doing the exact opposite of
President Obama.
On the same day when American voters were talking about powerful speeches from the First Lady and Julian Castro, The Nation reported
that the increasingly shaky and awkward Paul Ryan actively lobbied the
Obama administration for money from Obamacare, specifically for a
community healthcare center in Racine. The Affordable Care Act provides
$9.5 billion for health centers and $1.5 billion for a series of brand
new centers, and Paul Ryan wanted a piece of the action while demonizing
Obamacare's "reckless spending" and how it's a "government takeover."
We've heard this before. Ryan also requested money from the dreaded
stimulus while voting against it and while using it as a cudgel to
utterly skull-bash the president's agenda.
But I suppose I'm not being civil by pointing out Ryan's obvious lack
of integrity, say nothing of the top of the ticket whose home planet
eradicated integrity centuries ago while purging itself of emotions and
authenticity during the final epoch of the Alpha Centauri Interstellar
Conundrum.
So the contrast between a strong Democratic Party and a flaky,
unstable, flip-floppy Republican Party has prompted the GOP to spend the
week whining and pooping its big boy pants about how the Democrats are
being so mean. For a Republican Party dependent upon lies and intellectual dishonesty, the truth really hurts.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republicans-cry-about-lac_b_1862013.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Enlarge Charles Dharapak/AP Los
Angeles Mayor and Democratic Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa
calls for a vote to amend the platform Wednesday at the Democratic
National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Party platforms are like contracts: No one bothers to read them until something bad happens.
We all know that parties to any agreement should study the fine print in advance, and surely that applies to the national political parties. The delegates really ought to spend some of their time in the host city studying the document they are voting to adopt.
But hey, it's a convention. It's a party. Who wants to sit in their hotel room and read?
Platforms can lead to awkward moments, and worse. At the Democratic convention this week, literally thousands of journalists have been left stalking the streets starved for news. It took no time at all for virtually every media outlet to pounce on a controversy that arose over two religion-related items in this year's Democratic Party platform.
It turns out this year's platform committee dropped a few words from the 2008 version — leaving out language proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and excising the "God-given" from a 2008 passage that supported all Americans' right to "make the most of their God-given potential."
Both changes offered a point of attack for Republicans, who said it showed a lack of commitment to Israel and a lack of respect for God. In response to the contretemps, and at the direction of the Obama campaign, the convention reopened the platform on its second day and restored the 2008 language.
That disturbed some of the delegates who either liked the changes or disliked the process by which they were reversed — or both. At the Wednesday night session, three voice votes were taken before the platform was re-approved. That drew further unwanted attention to the whole matter, disrupting the spirit of unity that has otherwise suffused this gathering.
At the Republican convention a week earlier, the platform was approved without discussion or audible dissent. Ron Paul delegates who wanted changes in the platform decided instead to make their stand on a controversial change to convention rules. They, too, were steamrolled on voice votes by the party powers that be.
But Republicans could have more of a problem if swing voters become aware of certain elements of their platform between now and November. Some groups representing Hispanics are angry about the border fencing language, and some women have objected to a platform that bans abortion without an exception for rape or incest.
Still, for all the nettlesome details in both platforms, neither party was going to spend much time — and certainly no prime time — airing its platform in public at convention time. Important as it is to set down in writing what the party believes in, and what its candidates would presumably work toward in office, it has become increasingly verboten to talk about it too publicly.
There are two big reasons for this.
First, the convention itself is no longer a deliberative body making decisions about candidates and positions. All of that has been settled before the convention, which is no more than a made-for-TV event meant to sell the party's line of products. This is equally true for both major parties. (The minor parties are another story.)
Platforms do not make for good TV. They must be read. No one has yet devised a platform video, or a platform song. Rap would seem to offer an intriguing possibility. But so far, at least, neither party has gone that route.
Lost in this post-modern, media-centric world, the platform committee is generally at the service of the nominee, who may dictate its language so as to fit his or her views. More often, however, the platform is used as a pressure valve for activists within the party's base. These are the people who are rarely satisfied with the nominee's commitment to party catechism (or with the nominee, for that matter).
And that is the other reason platforms have become too hot to handle: The party catechisms keep getting more orthodox. Rather than seek language that brings together the various wings of the party, the contemporary platformers are eager to please those they agree with themselves.
Gone are the days when moderate and even liberal Republicans showed up alongside conservatives and proudly claimed those labels. Gone, too, are the days when Southern Democrats and others called themselves conservatives and seriously contested the party's platform — or its direction.
But as Dixie has shifted over the past 50 years from its Democratic roots to a hard tilt toward Republicans, the two parties have both moved away from the center. There are elements within each that still promote compromise or look for potential common ground. But most of them struggle to be relevant.
The typical platform committee now thinks the nominee needs a steady diet of red meat in order to bulk up and "get out the base" in November. They tell each other that the nominee needs to "stand for something," which usually means a full-throated version of what they believe themselves.
So the platform becomes less alluring for candidates in pursuit of swing voters. Fewer actual politicians want to embrace it, or at least not when everybody's watching.
Robert Dole, the GOP nominee in 1996, was typically blunt when asked about that year's platform. He said he hadn't gotten around to reading it — which was his way of turning aside questions about thorny social issues, or issues on which he might disagree with his running mate, Jack Kemp. That gave leave to other candidates down-ballot to distance themselves from their own party manifestos.
Dole was simply being more forthright than most, acknowledging the relative indifference that nominees have shown to their platforms in recent decades. The platform itself is a relic from the days when the parties were far more important institutions. Presidential nominees were chosen largely by the same party insiders who chose candidates for Congress and for local offices as well.
As the primary system and the electronic media have diminished the parties and conventions, the parties and conventions have come to be dominated by ideologues in search of power they cannot win as candidates. That is why the platforms have gone radical, become vestigial and caused discomfort whenever they are noticed.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/06/160668087/what-the-democrats-do-over-really-says-about-party-platforms?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20120906
We all know that parties to any agreement should study the fine print in advance, and surely that applies to the national political parties. The delegates really ought to spend some of their time in the host city studying the document they are voting to adopt.
But hey, it's a convention. It's a party. Who wants to sit in their hotel room and read?
Platforms can lead to awkward moments, and worse. At the Democratic convention this week, literally thousands of journalists have been left stalking the streets starved for news. It took no time at all for virtually every media outlet to pounce on a controversy that arose over two religion-related items in this year's Democratic Party platform.
It turns out this year's platform committee dropped a few words from the 2008 version — leaving out language proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and excising the "God-given" from a 2008 passage that supported all Americans' right to "make the most of their God-given potential."
Both changes offered a point of attack for Republicans, who said it showed a lack of commitment to Israel and a lack of respect for God. In response to the contretemps, and at the direction of the Obama campaign, the convention reopened the platform on its second day and restored the 2008 language.
That disturbed some of the delegates who either liked the changes or disliked the process by which they were reversed — or both. At the Wednesday night session, three voice votes were taken before the platform was re-approved. That drew further unwanted attention to the whole matter, disrupting the spirit of unity that has otherwise suffused this gathering.
At the Republican convention a week earlier, the platform was approved without discussion or audible dissent. Ron Paul delegates who wanted changes in the platform decided instead to make their stand on a controversial change to convention rules. They, too, were steamrolled on voice votes by the party powers that be.
But Republicans could have more of a problem if swing voters become aware of certain elements of their platform between now and November. Some groups representing Hispanics are angry about the border fencing language, and some women have objected to a platform that bans abortion without an exception for rape or incest.
Still, for all the nettlesome details in both platforms, neither party was going to spend much time — and certainly no prime time — airing its platform in public at convention time. Important as it is to set down in writing what the party believes in, and what its candidates would presumably work toward in office, it has become increasingly verboten to talk about it too publicly.
There are two big reasons for this.
First, the convention itself is no longer a deliberative body making decisions about candidates and positions. All of that has been settled before the convention, which is no more than a made-for-TV event meant to sell the party's line of products. This is equally true for both major parties. (The minor parties are another story.)
Platforms do not make for good TV. They must be read. No one has yet devised a platform video, or a platform song. Rap would seem to offer an intriguing possibility. But so far, at least, neither party has gone that route.
Lost in this post-modern, media-centric world, the platform committee is generally at the service of the nominee, who may dictate its language so as to fit his or her views. More often, however, the platform is used as a pressure valve for activists within the party's base. These are the people who are rarely satisfied with the nominee's commitment to party catechism (or with the nominee, for that matter).
And that is the other reason platforms have become too hot to handle: The party catechisms keep getting more orthodox. Rather than seek language that brings together the various wings of the party, the contemporary platformers are eager to please those they agree with themselves.
Gone are the days when moderate and even liberal Republicans showed up alongside conservatives and proudly claimed those labels. Gone, too, are the days when Southern Democrats and others called themselves conservatives and seriously contested the party's platform — or its direction.
But as Dixie has shifted over the past 50 years from its Democratic roots to a hard tilt toward Republicans, the two parties have both moved away from the center. There are elements within each that still promote compromise or look for potential common ground. But most of them struggle to be relevant.
The typical platform committee now thinks the nominee needs a steady diet of red meat in order to bulk up and "get out the base" in November. They tell each other that the nominee needs to "stand for something," which usually means a full-throated version of what they believe themselves.
So the platform becomes less alluring for candidates in pursuit of swing voters. Fewer actual politicians want to embrace it, or at least not when everybody's watching.
Robert Dole, the GOP nominee in 1996, was typically blunt when asked about that year's platform. He said he hadn't gotten around to reading it — which was his way of turning aside questions about thorny social issues, or issues on which he might disagree with his running mate, Jack Kemp. That gave leave to other candidates down-ballot to distance themselves from their own party manifestos.
Dole was simply being more forthright than most, acknowledging the relative indifference that nominees have shown to their platforms in recent decades. The platform itself is a relic from the days when the parties were far more important institutions. Presidential nominees were chosen largely by the same party insiders who chose candidates for Congress and for local offices as well.
As the primary system and the electronic media have diminished the parties and conventions, the parties and conventions have come to be dominated by ideologues in search of power they cannot win as candidates. That is why the platforms have gone radical, become vestigial and caused discomfort whenever they are noticed.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/06/160668087/what-the-democrats-do-over-really-says-about-party-platforms?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20120906