The boss.
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 ...
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.
One word Slick Willie doesn’t understand is, “is”.
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?
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
The DNC-e rigged the game.
Now we know what Elizabeth Warren was referring to when she said the game is rigged against us.
http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/CA27999111C8632/Antonio-Villar.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
The boss.
Duh. Thank you UCANSEE2. She pretty much runs the nation.
Correctamundo.
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?
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.
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.
I’m only surprised they didn’t declare Jerusalem
the Capital of Palestine and insert the word Allah
somewhere.
Political officer. :)
How did this guy get to be mayor of LA without knowing how to fast gavel a voice vote?
Luke 22:34
But Jesus said, "Peter, let me tell you something. Before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me."
Oh brother!
What a strange looking woman...kind of evil looking.
We recall that when all this happened to Peter, ".... he went out, and wept bitterly." (Matthew 26:71-75) ~ and although this one was more like Villaraigosa portraying Pontius Pilate, the mob (of Democrats) crying out for Barabbas must have been more than familiar to him.
This guy now has a lifelong problem ~ he presided over an official Democrat party Denial of God three times (a propitious number in such matters), such deed done in the guise of a howling mob ~ which we all know from the Gospel of John can and does occur in sight of the very presence of Satan.
Add to that his adopted surname of "Villaraigosa" ~ a clear Roma adaptation of "Villa Ragusa" which is otherwise today known as Dubrovnik Croatia.
Now, for the one more relationship in this linkage, the medieval Republic of Ragusa had a town motto (according to Wiki) which went;
"Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro - Latin for "Liberty is not well sold for all the gold".
Kind of like the scene with the moving finger there in Babylon.
After three votes, the accumulated Ayes added up to 2/3.
This is a Democrat (not Democratic) method of vote counting.
Why is Villaraigosa getting a bad wrap? He was "just following orders"...
Yes, I thouth of that right when I saw it on utube.
Things don’t happend by accident.
Check my post at #27 because there’s more ~ far more!
That was parliamentarian Helen McFadden, who was doing her job. Villaraigosa ignored her advice--he ignored the three voice votes in which the affirmative clearly failed to reach the required two-thirds--and he read the prescripted outcome off the teleprompter.
And what makes them think God wants to be associated with them anymore anyway?!
Echos of “Behold the man!” followed by “Crucify Him! crucify Him!”
Also recall Revelations 3:15-16 “I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
I went looking for DNC parliamentarian and quickly found ... Steny Hoyer. But it appears you nailed it:
Helen T. McFadden DNC Winter Meeting, Washington, DC, Feb. 1-3, 2007 |
Your google fu is impressive!
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.