TexasCHLforum.com

Please try not to take my comments in this thread the wrong way... I believe God and Jerusalem were taken out intentionally and doing so speaks volumes about the Democratic and Obama agendas... I want Obama gone too.

That said, if I was in a leadership position in the Democratic party, I would realize the mistake and do everything I could (including declaring a voice vote "passed" when it clearly was not), to lift that yolk off my candidate. I can't fault the Dem leadership for "fixing" the platform...

I did enjoy watching the fiasco.

The problem is that the guy taking the vote actually thought he was supposed to care what the people said. I thought it was obvious that he had a problem doing what he ended up being told to do.

XinTX wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:When I read Chas's word "Elite", my initial reaction is to say that they're trying to win an election, they're "leading"... Leaders get elected to get the job done and the leaders of the DNC are forcing an update to the platform without which they will have a harder time getting their candidate elected... The action strives to serve the best interest of their party, even though it goes against the apparent wishes of the delegates.

Someone 'leading' wouldn't have put that platform out with the omission in the first place. At least, a leader with any grounding in the political realities that exist now in the US. Changing that at the 11th hour was responding to focus group polling data, NOT leading.

I STRONGLY disagreed with the GOP rule change. But I think the GOP uppers were worried about a Ron Paul insurrection. He had said a few things that they took as a threat to lead some challenges on the convention floor. Again, that was response out of fear of a perceived threat. A true leader would face the challenge.

But those are just my opinions and are worth what you paid for them.

One of the groups that I belong to had our leader elected as a representative to the Republican convention. She used social media to keep us informed about the actions during the rule changes. Your assessment about what that leadership called the "Paul-bots" is accurate, based on the information that we were getting. But you don't disenfranchise everyone to deal with a contentious element. All of us should fear a Ron Paul third party campaign far more than we worry about the rabble-rousing that was going on at the convention.

If the GOP leadership cannot deal with Ron Paul's backers, how in the heck are they ever going to deal mess that is going on in the Middle East if they get into power. We don't need yet another inept administration.

Is there any civil action that the delegates could take against the DNC?

Thomas wrote:Is there any civil action that the delegates could take against the DNC?

Not going to happen. One thing the dems have always done better than the republicans...unify behind their party and get a D elected, whether they liked him or not.