« Busting the Democrat myth of the Koch brothers |
| Obama State Department officially refusing to say Jerusalem is Israel's capital »
God, Jerusalem, and the Daffy Dems
So the Democrats have, against the clear vote of their convention delegates, reinserted language related to God and Jerusalem into their platform. As Governor Strickland, who brought this fraudulent motion, informs us, this about face was instigated at the urging of President Obama himself. Thus, we see that Obama is an equal opportunity tyrant: he is prepared to rule by fiat among his own party faithful, just as he proudly runs roughshod over Republican lawmakers and the American people in general.
It's bizarrely comforting to know that the U.S. Constitution isn't the only rulebook he despises.
In other words, the official position, at that moment, was that the Democratic Party could no longer support the idea that Jerusalem should remain the permanent capital of Israel, although of course they would continue to provide plenty of hot air about "the Jewish people" in order to keep those campaign dollars coming.
A few hours later, of course, the official Party line had changed again. Platform Drafting Committee Chairman Strickland announced that, "President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." (Interesting wording: does that mean the permanent capital, or just that it is the capital today?) To their credit, the booing "no" voters at the convention showed more backbone than their embarrassing leaders, refusing to cave in under the spotlight.
As for the removed and reinserted "God" reference, the language in question was this innocuous phrase: "... and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."
In light of Obama's infamous explanation of the source that makes all success possible -- you didn't build that, government did -- this reference to "God-given potential" might literally be regarded as a contradiction of Obama's socio-economic theory. In that sense, it should have been excised from the new platform.
Regarding this omission, the original official defense was amusingly Clintonesque:
All this word counting was carefully designed to mask the real issue: yes, the Democrats are willing to concede the existence and practical usefulness of "faith based organizations," "churches," and "religion"; what they are not willing to do any longer is give credence to the beliefs of such organizations by actually saying, in the party's own voice, that humans are endowed with their potential by God. (As for being endowed with their rights by God, don't even go there.)
You might wonder why they thought these changes would go unnoticed. After all, isn't the purpose of a party platform to inform the public of your beliefs? Actually, no. The purpose of a party platform is to satisfy the various interests of the power players in the party apparatus.
The Communist Party has endorsed Obama, and, if the number of communists, socialists and Maoists in and around the current administration is any indication, has a significant voice in party policy. Naturally, they would want to excise any official profession of faith, or even casual reference to "God-given" anything. Likewise, they, along with the Islamist faction that Michele Bachmann and others have been castigated for mentioning, would be keen to do away with any official defense of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
So the platform committee, focused on the supporters they consider most important, accommodated these wishes. They produced a platform that Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Rashid Khalidi could live with. (The excised criticism of Hamas has not yet been reinserted.)
And then it blew up in their faces when people had the gall to notice and ask about it. As Thomas Lifson has explained, this moment, whatever else one may say about it, is just plain funny, and is a fitting accompaniment to the blushing venue shrinkage for Obama's acceptance speech. On the current trajectory, one almost wonders whether there will even be a Democrat Party by Election Day.
Considering all of this, I was suddenly reminded of a remarkable foreshadowing of the whole convention scene -- from the delusions of grandeur to the pathetic pretzel of clumsy obfuscation, self-contradiction, and reversal -- from more than half a century ago.
Nothing captures the essence of this week better than the classic Looney Tunes cartoon, "Robin Hood Daffy." Daffy Duck, in so many ways, exemplifies the aspirations and the realities of the Democratic Party -- except that Daffy doesn't hate you. "I'll prove I'm Robin Hood. See yon rich unwary traveler? I'll rob him of his gold, and give it to some poor unworthy slob." Fairness, anyone? Enjoy.
FOLLOW US ON