Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Villaraigosa's handling of platform gets mixed reviews from CA
SacBee: Capitol Alert ^ | 9/6/12 | Torey Van Oot

Posted on 09/06/2012 10:59:54 PM PDT by SmithL

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Los Angeles Mayor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa is still facing questions about his handling of late changes to the Democratic party platform made this week, including from some delegates hailing from his own state.

Villaraigosa presided Wednesday over a vote to restore in the platform references to God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The chair declared the amendments adopted after three voice votes from a divided Time Warner Cable Arena audience, drawing objections and boos from some in the crowd who felt the ayes had not hit the two-thirds margin needed for passage.

Dr. Sota Omoigai, a delegate from the San Fernando Valley, was among those dissenting.

"(Former President Bill Clinton) later came out and said one word the Republicans don't understand is arithmetic. There was no arithmetic done when Villaraigosa declared it was two-thirds that had given the voice vote," he said. "...I believe that democracy needs to be practiced in all aspects of the platform. This position cannot be shoved down the party."

Omoigai, who doesn't believe the party should take a stance on Jerusalem as the capital, said it was "very clear" both in the arena and on TV that the vote was either evenly split or in favor of the nos. He called Villaraigosa a "pawn" of party leaders in the decision, but said it still affected his views of the mayor, who has signaled interest in running for statewide office.

Joe Romero, Jr., a delegate from Woodland, said watching on TV, it looked like Villaraigosa "couldn't account for" the two-thirds vote that was declared.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cultureofcorruption; godlessparty; villaraigosa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
The Godless party will say anything to win.
1 posted on 09/06/2012 11:00:01 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I am sure Antonio was just following orders from Axelrod via the CINC. Polling must have indicated dissing God in your platform was not conducive to a Second Regime.


2 posted on 09/06/2012 11:03:53 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

One word Slick Willie doesn’t understand is, “is”.


3 posted on 09/06/2012 11:07:43 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (On 5 September 2012 A.D., the communist Democrats tried to kill God and failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Who was the woman standing behind him who told him he’d just have to call it and let them do what they’re going to do?


4 posted on 09/06/2012 11:09:35 PM PDT by Man With A Gun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Yep that is exactly right. He was told the Platform would be changed or else. I wish Obama would just show the whole world who he is and what he stands for. Obama is evil


5 posted on 09/06/2012 11:13:46 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

The DNC-e rigged the game.


6 posted on 09/06/2012 11:24:46 PM PDT by JediJones (Grow your own dope...plant a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Now we know what Elizabeth Warren was referring to when she said the game is rigged against us.


7 posted on 09/06/2012 11:25:28 PM PDT by JediJones (Grow your own dope...plant a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Man With A Gun
Hannity reports that Chair's teleprompter was already loaded with the language, "In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted ..."
8 posted on 09/06/2012 11:26:27 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Antonio Villaraigosa (born Antonio Villar) changed his name, and for good reason. His father is a bigger creep than he is.

http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/CA27999111C8632/Antonio-Villar.html

9 posted on 09/06/2012 11:38:46 PM PDT by South40 ("Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Hussein Obama, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Hannity reports that Chair's teleprompter was already loaded with the language, "In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted ..."

lol! So if only 1 person in the building said YES he still had to call it a 2/3 vote? These people are so damned corrupt.

10 posted on 09/06/2012 11:44:01 PM PDT by South40 ("Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Hussein Obama, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I kinda felt sorry for the mayor. He seemed really shocked by the whole thing and didn’t know how to handle it. It was obvious that he had expected an automatic resounding “yay”.

I’d still love to know who took both words out.


11 posted on 09/06/2012 11:58:58 PM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40; cynwoody
So if only 1 person in the building said YES he still had to call it a 2/3 vote?

Nobody gets it.

Watch the video of Mayor V and pay close attention to his words at the very beginning. He asked and took a vote (which passed almost unanimously) to SUSPEND THE RULES.

Words mean things.

The need for a quorum, or 2/3, or majority, or roll call, or more than 20 people to even be on the floor at the time..... those are RULES that were all UNDER SUSPENSION until after the vote.

NOTICE how EMPHATICALLY Mayor V restates the SUSPENSION OF THE RULES right after the first vote. Watch his facial expression as well.

It was supposed to 'look good' (the delegates were supposed to go along with the plan), but when it didn't, well.... they never should have agreed to SUSPEND THE RULES.

12 posted on 09/07/2012 12:01:47 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 ( If you think I'm crazy, just wait until you talk to my invisible friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

No, the suspension of the rules was to make an amendment to the platform at all.

By rule the platform can only be changed by the committee, so in order to propose and adopt an amendment on the floor, the rules had to be suspended, which required a 2/3 vote, which he got.

But once the rule was suspended and the proposal of an amendment was allowed, they still needed a 2/3 vote to actually adopt the amendment, which they he did not get, and after 3 tries, he still didn’t get it, and he just adopted it anyway.


13 posted on 09/07/2012 12:04:59 AM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
I’d still love to know who took both words out.

The boss.


14 posted on 09/07/2012 12:04:59 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 ( If you think I'm crazy, just wait until you talk to my invisible friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Duh. Thank you UCANSEE2. She pretty much runs the nation.


15 posted on 09/07/2012 12:18:44 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
No, the suspension of the rules was to make an amendment to the platform at all.

Correctamundo.

16 posted on 09/07/2012 12:19:01 AM PDT by South40 ("Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Hussein Obama, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
No, the suspension of the rules was to make an amendment to the platform at all.

You are making that assumption. Let's see if it pans out.

By rule the platform can only be changed by the committee, so in order to propose and adopt an amendment on the floor, the rules had to be suspended, which required a 2/3 vote, which he got.

So if the RULE is that it can only be changed by committee, then it should only be changed by committee. I mean, if you are going to have rules, you can't just ignore them when convenient. Let's proceed.

But once the rule was suspended and the proposal of an amendment was allowed, they still needed a 2/3 vote to actually adopt the amendment,...

Apparently not. The teleprompter had already CONFIRMED THE VOTE, which would imply that the DECISION had been made WHAT WOULD HAPPEN way before the vote (and because they never had an inkling the morons would vote the wrong way).

which they he did not get, and after 3 tries, he still didn’t get it, and he just adopted it anyway.

SO, after they SUSPENDED THE RULES they voted, and after 3 failures (against the rules is it not?), they declared the AYES the WINNER (against the rules again, is it not?) pretty much indicating that even the rules for 2/3 VOCAL VOTE (which is so ridiculous it just proves the vote was just a 'video formality') were not being followed.

So.... regardless to which of us is right, it sure is obvious THEY WERE CHEATING, one way or another, isn't it?

17 posted on 09/07/2012 12:20:35 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 ( If you think I'm crazy, just wait until you talk to my invisible friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: South40
No, the suspension of the rules was to make an amendment to the platform at all.

After which they violated the rule of 2/3 vote by redoing the vote three times, and then violated the rule of 2/3 vote by calling it for the AYES when it was obvious the NAYS had it.

No one has been CALLED for VIOLATING the RULES, so.... the logical conclusion is that everything was OK because the rules WERE SUSPENDED until the VOTING was done. Unless you have some other explanation for how they got away with it.

Actually, either way you call it, the DEMS were CHEATING to attempt to FOOL the PUBLIC. 'HOW' we each think it was done is probably a trivial thing.

18 posted on 09/07/2012 12:29:07 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 ( If you think I'm crazy, just wait until you talk to my invisible friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Of course they cheated, the mistake they made was that they thought the delegates knew the score and would play along with the amendment vote. They did not expect the delegates to stage a revolt and embarrass them like that.


19 posted on 09/07/2012 12:39:58 AM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher

I’m only surprised they didn’t declare Jerusalem
the Capital of Palestine and insert the word Allah
somewhere.


20 posted on 09/07/2012 12:53:12 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson