The Democratic platform begins with a whole bunch of misleading points. Apparently, under Obama, your taxes went down $3,600 despite the constant tax increases as well as Obama’s repeated attempts to repeal the Bush tax cuts. And Obama wants you to know that Romney wants to raise your taxes! Obama also helped small businesses by giving them tax breaks to buy healthcare under Obamacare. He made Medicare “stronger” by “saving” $4,200 per senior by cutting $700 billion from Medicare. Not to mention, he fixed the doughnut hole in coverage (which was fixed under Bush). And don’t forget, he saved the auto industry! They even claim he “restored fiscal sanity” by reducing the deficit by $4 trillion. . . total lie.
Obama signed free trade agreements and told China to stop manipulating their currency. Never mind, the Democrats stopped those treaties until the Republicans forced the issue and China laughed Obama off. He also ended lobbying. . . although leftist Politico just ran an article talking about how nothing has really changed for lobbyists.
The platform also makes a slew of promises to each interest group they have. It promises money for HIV/AIDS research to help black and Latino men. Obama’s wants to hire 100,000 new teachers and spend more on Head Start. He “saved” $60 billion for the student loan program by pushing banks out of the process and he “invested” some of that money in Historically Black Colleges and he wants to increase the amount you can borrow under student loans -- thereby making the problem of affordability worse, rather than better.... but college kids are too stupid to realize that.
He wants the Federal government to hire 100,000 Americans with disabilities by 2015. He wants to buy biofuels to get the votes of farmers, and he mentions that he’s brought them record profits (forget the harm this has done to consumers). He supports the government working with faith-based organization, which he identifies as “critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking.” Obama also wants to stop voter ID laws which he claims stop blacks from voting. He wants to give companies incentives to hire wounded veterans. He wants civil rights laws for gays, gay marriage, and equal pay laws for women, and he wants free “prenatal screenings, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, breast-feeding supports, and contraception” for women.
But more importantly, the platform is written in code so that each interest group can see the promises they are getting, but the overall statement sounds very reasonable to the uninitiated. Here are some great examples:
● For the environmentalists, he wants an “all of the above energy plan” based on new emission rules and fuel efficiency standards to make alternative energies more profitable. In other words, he claims to love all forms of energy while promising to make oil and gas so expensive no one wants to use it.
● He wants to “out-build” the world on infrastructure and talks vaguely about “standing up for workers” through the National Labor Relations Board. Again, if you don’t know what he’s talking about it, it sounds like he’s concerned with all workers, but he’s only talking to unions.
● He promises to stabilize the housing market to punish “irresponsible lenders [who] tricked buyers into signing subprime loans” by allowing every “responsible homeowner” to refinance. Forget that no one got tricked into these loans and the people who need refinancing aren’t responsible homeowners. This is a bribe hidden as protection from predators.
● Consider the issue of abortion. Here is what the platform says:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.Notice how reasonable this sounds. The word abortion is only used twice here, as compared to the Republican platform which couldn’t stop talking about it. Notice also how rather than talking up abortion, this very much reads like it seeks to curb abortion and notice how it ends with an insistence on protecting women who choose to have a child. This isn’t consistent with their normal rhetoric at all or their voting records, but it certain comes across as reasonable, not-obsessed and not extreme. Do you see the words "government financed"? No, huh? It's in there under "regardless of ability to pay."
● Guns are similar. How often have we seen Democrats try anything they could to take away gun rights. Look at liberal cities that even banned guns. Yet, the platform says “We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.” Again, this sounds quite reasonable and never hints at their obsession, unless you know the idiosyncratic meaning of the words they are using.
● Internet freedom is another good example. Whereas the Republicans spoke of censoring the internet for the children, the Democrats talk about defending internet freedom and “opposing the extension of intergovernmental controls over the Internet.” Forget that they are the driving force behind interjecting the government through net neutrality laws and they joined all the anti-piracy SOPA stuff.
● Finally, we come to immigration. The Democrats have been the party of open borders, of sanctuary cities, of amnesty, of benefits to illegals, and of opposition to anything that might integrate immigrants into America. Indeed, even suggesting that immigrants learn English is enough to be branded a racist by the Democrats. Yet, they say this:
Democrats know there is broad consensus to repair that system and strengthen our economy, and that the country urgently needs comprehensive immigration reform that brings undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and requires them to get right with the law, learn English, and pay taxes in order to get on a path to earn citizenship.That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Too bad, this isn't the Democratic position.
As I said above, these platforms have been an exercise in frustration. The Republicans couldn’t stop talking about abortion and taking extremist positions whenever one was available, and the Democrats’ platform is packed with lies and distortions. But I have to hand it to the Democrats that their platform sounds reasonable. . . unless you know what each word really means when translated into policy.
61 comments:
Andrew.........and most apolitical voters will be read this pap and say, "See....this is why I am voting Democrat!" They are reasonable people unlike those evil repuglicans.
I see this in my own extended family and there is no convincing the die hards. Those of us with our babel fish translators implanted see and understand all you said.
There is no reaching the obamazombies.........
Andrew,
They lie well, don't they?
I agree with Patriot. This is why most people who don't watch politics except right around election time will happily vote for the Democrats, because they make themselves sound reasonable even when they aren't. The Republicans need to learn to be thoughtful in how they present their views because they really don't come across well.
I'll never understand the opposition to voter ID laws. I'm sure I'm speaking to the choir here but it just seems like one of those common sense things: you're voting for the leader of the free world; the least you can do is prove who you are.
ScottDS,
Also, it used to be that people would actually check to see if your signature matches what was on file. They never do. Getting the people who actually sit at the voting sites to do the right thing is extremely hard.
Also, supposedly each party sends a person to monitor each poll. Well, usually this job is given to a party hack and he or she is there for the drinks that aren't supposed to be at the polls.
Voter ID laws only really work when the poll monitors enforce it. They are supposed to make sure the people collecting the votes don't add in false votes. A trust but verify situation. Still, keep the people collecting the votes busy with voters and you generally get an honest vote tally.
Good article.
That's precisely why they do better than Republicans in many areas. We all know that it's pure unadulterated crap and it's not what they mean, but to them it's the craft of the lie. Republicans try to be as straight forward as possible and it comes back to bite them.
Patriot, That is the problem exactly. The Democrats are very good at speaking quietly to their interest groups and otherwise making everything they say sound very reasonable. To understand the truth, you need to watch how they actually vote, the legislation they propose, what they fight for and what they won't, and then translate what they say into normal speak.
Few people who don't pay a lot of attention to the process do that. So they Democrats sound very reasonable -- even though it's all misleading and false.
Joel, They do because they've had lots of practice. I can tell you how many times I've heard reasonable sounding promises from Democrats that I knew just weren't true and sure enough almost a minute after the election is over they declared and "unexpected change of heart." Yeah, right.
DUQ, The Republicans need to learn to (1) stop pushing fringe stuff that can't even be achieved, (2) stop seeing the world through fringe glasses, (3) learn the art of marketing, and (4) come up with a stronger game plan for explaining their beliefs.
Scott, It's based on an historical idea where white Southerners used things like intelligence tests to disqualify black voters under Jim Crow. Opposition to that morphed into opposition to stopping any sort of requirement to vote. But the only reason the left really pushes it is that it leaves the door open to fraud. That may sound paranoid, but it's true. By preventing anyone from asking for an ID, you allow anyone to vote if they can just name a person on the list... ACORN.
Joel, They've always been pretty good at verifying ID whenever I've voted here or in Virginia.
LL, That's true. The Republicans don't even grasp the art of marketing. There are many ways you can present the truth and yet they see only one -- big and blunt. At the very least, they need to learn how to say things in nicer ways.
This all does read surprisingly reasonable. But we know it's not because we've seen them all in action. We've got years of seeing what they really mean.
You know what frustrates me the most? The claim about fiscal sanity. If there was ever a party dedicated to insane fiscal policy, it's the Democrats. Yet here they claim fake savings as proof they "restored sanity"? Unbelievable.
Andrew
The Democrats have always been good at lying it is ingrained in their nature. I cannot tell you the number of individuals that told me they were Republicans or Independents when I first met them that I eventually found out were die hard progs. They do this to feel people out sot they can understand where they are coming from and then either persuade or attack based on how flxible they operceive you to be.
The only thing that ends up saving conservatives in the end is that when they finally get in power through their misdirection their ideology always manages to bankrupt everyone. This happened with Carter who came to power because of Nixon and then Obama becasue of the ability to falsely malign Bush regardign the war and the mortgage crisus they created.
Both times they so sunk themselves because they did not understand their policies are terrible and create corruption.
If the Republicans could learn to market themselves better and with regard to issues like abortion learn to pick their battles wiser then maybe the far left could be trurly defeated.
Ellen, That's the thing. Everything they say here sounds reasonable. And if you're a casual observer, then you have no reason to think otherwise. By comparison, the Republican platform sounds like it was written by obsessed nuts. And what makes it even worse is that none of the things the nuts are obsessing about will happen. So we're turning people off for no reason.
DUQ, That one frustrates me a lot too. They are the party of trillion dollar DEFICITS and here they are claiming they have (in the future) lowered the debt by $4 trillion??
Re: voter ID - I would like to add that at the same time, Dems are STILL accusing Bush of stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections. The only way that could happen would be with massive voter fraud. So they speak out both ends of their bodies...
Oh, yeah, Lilly Ledebetter spoke last night. I wonder if she's admonished the Obama Administration for not paying women equally in the West Wing yet?
And finally (and I know this is a small point)- Great line from Clint Eastwood re: moving Obama's speech to a smaller venue because of "the weather".
“Just to clarify, Obama’s speech venue changed because of fears of… empty chairs.”
Even the weather professionals don't know why they would move it. The weather is going to be great all week. The Dems better pray for rain and thunder for vindication.
Andrew: I agree on all points. The Democrats are masters of covering up their agenda with nice-sounding euphemisms. The most obvious are: abortion=choice and taxes=revenue. And then there's gun control=gun confiscation.
I have to address that Second Amendment issue. As you said, they tout "reasonable" gun control and make their whole platform sound reasonable when it is both radical and unconstitutional. The Democrats (and unfortunately most Americans) don't understand the legal balancing test required of any legislation affecting fundamental rights (anything in the Bill of Rights).
No matter how "reasonable" a given gun control law may appear to be, that is not the test. Once the Supreme Court has confirmed that a given right is a fundamental right (which it did with the Second Amendment, twice in less than a year), reasonableness is no longer the test. The legislation must serve a narrowly-defined compelling state interest. But it's a tough argument for Constitutionalists. Who doesn't support "reasonable" limitations on arms? Thus, it is easy for the liberals to paint conservatives as "gun nuts" who all want to own a nuke and an Abrams tank or two.
Fortunately, the abortion planks for both parties are over the edge. But the Democrats will, as you pointed out, do a better job of looking reasonable while the Republicans will come off as absolutists, even when most are not. Fortunately, nobody pays much attention to party platforms, and neither abortion nor gun control is going to determine the outcome of the election. Still, the issues can't be ignored.
Indi, I agree. I think the idea of lying became ingrained in the 1980s. That's the first time I really noticed it. Up until then they talked openly about their beliefs. But when Reagan won people over with tax cuts and deregulation, the Democrats realized they were in trouble because no one accepted their beliefs anymore. So they started lying.... "we absolutely love tax cuts, vote for us!" Then they would immediately vote for tax hikes once they took office. Soon they did it on other issues as well. By now it seems to be taken as necessary and acceptable by their followers that they will lie to get into office and lie about their records back home.
The Republicans need to learn the art of selling their ideas. Pushing the fringey crap and spelling things out in the most fringey way just won't work. They need to learn which ideas people like and push those. They need to learn to explain the better parts of their agenda and downplay the less acceptable. I'm not saying lie, but they need to refocus.
That's something I actually think Romney has proven adept at. It's too bad the rest of the party hasn't followed suit.
Bev, The Democrats are quick to decry voter fraud (they yell it every time they lose) but they fight every policy which could prevent it. And if you want something really telling, think back on Florida and note that they were accusing Bush of stealing the election by accusing DEMOCRATIC elected officials of unfairly disqualifying votes while simultaneously trying to stop recounts in any area that wasn't heavily Democratic. It's pure politics for them. It has nothing to do with integrity.
On Ledebetter, This administration has been positively hostile to women. There have been dozens of complaints about (1) a lack of women in positions of authority, (2) sexual harassment, and (3) massive pay differences. But all the liberals are willing to overlook that because they agree with Obama's ideology.
I wrote a long time ago that I thought Obama was a misogynist and I stand by that.
That is a great quote by Eastwood. They are absolutely afraid of empty chairs. That's been the story throughout.
LawHawk......I really wish the repubs would come right out and state that the reason for the 2nd amendment is NOT just for a well regulated militia...or even self-defense....but to enable the people to rise up against a tyrannical government when they get to powerful.
They won't do this as they themselves would be targets (metaphorically speaking of course) of the people's anger.
So, instead of the old standby...pitchforks, clubs and and a short drop.....the founders added FIREPOWER to the list...thus scaring the crap out of the politicos.
So the dream of every power hungry "leader" has always been to disarm the people and ensure their ability to run rough shod over any "bitter clingers" without any nasty repercussions.
If the repubs would market this aspect of the 2nd amendment, then maybe they would put to rest this "reasonable" gun control argument that the left has been pushing since the first baby leftist suckled at the government teat.
Lawhawk, I agree. And it is a good thing that few people pay attention to the platforms. Unfortunately, these documents do give us a sense of the broader issue when it comes to how the two parties compete in politics. The Democrats are much better salesmen because they know they need to sound reasonable. The only times they don't sound reasonable is when they speak directly to their fringe groups at various meets or conventions, usually outside of the sight of cameras. The Republicans, on the other hand, just spit out things that sound obsessed, fringey, absolutist, and simply uninformed. If the Republicans could refocus on the things people care about and speak to them in their terms without sounding like nuts, then they would easily become and remain the permanent dominant party. But they can't do that.
You're right about guns too. The test is "narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest." But the politics gets you the Democrats screaming "reasonable" and the Republicans taking the NRA position of "no limits." Which one do you think the public will think makes more sense?
Frankly, it's a surprise the Democrats don't do better in elections. I put that down to the innate conservative-ness of the electorate.
My political buddy who normally will vehemently disagree with any criticism leveled at the Republican party can't even deny that the Democrats are better at PR than the GOP.
Patriot, I don't think that would be a good idea. For one thing, telling people "the reason we allow this is to allow the violent overthrow of the government" will not be taken well by average people. I would think that would turn a lot of people off gun rights and would turn the issue into one of easy mockery.
tryanmax, I think it's undeniable. The Democrats are much better at selling themselves than the Republicans. The Democrats know you have to sound reasonable, whereas the Republicans seem to think that being batsh*t crazy is what will win over the public.
I will have to state this however....
Whatever good will the Progs received from their clever crafting of their platform was easily flooded away by that video they showed where they stated...
"Government is the only thing we all belong to ...."
WE don't BELONG to any government, that Government BELONGS to US.......
Andrew.....probably the reason I'm not a politician!! :)
Patriot: I don't have much to add to what Andrew said. Sometimes the truth has to be carefully stated, lest it come off as sounding off-kilter. One of the underlying purposes of the Second Amendment was indeed fending off domestic tyranny, but if that is emphasized, those who know little about history or the Founders cannot put the concept into context. The gun-grabbers then help them out by calling all Second Amendment supporters crazed militiamen.
The best example was Timothy McVeigh. He was nuts, and got what he deserved in the end. But he was carrying and in possession of multiple Revolutionary War and subsequent tracts by the Founders. The gun-grabbers ran with that, knowing that most people were not well-schooled in history and context. McVeigh concentrated on the "weapons against tyranny" argument, and the gun-grabbers obliged him by pointing that out. Thus, believing in the words of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine became conflated with fringe-group thinking because all the other context got lost in the argument.
Indi, The problem is that you are tuned in and you assume other people are also tuned in. I doubt 1/1,000 people will see what you're talking about or interpret it the same way. This is an broader issue of presentation. The Democrats are consistent about how they promote themselves as reasonable moderates. The Republicans are the ones who keep coming across as wild-eyed crazies. Until that changes across the board, the public perception of the two parties won't change.
The genius of Reagan was to present himself in very "common man" ways which people could understand and believe in. He never foamed at the mouth or ran around making extremist statements. But too many modern Republicans do that.
The Democrats do it too, but they are quick to fall back on the "but we're moderates" routine. The Republicans go the other way and embrace the "we're extremists" approach. That needs to stop.
Patriot, Politics is the art of selling ideas and to do that, you need to think about how your target market will perceive the ideas. To make your point more subtly, just talk about guns being in the Constitution as a means to protect the public from oppression and to keep the government honest.
Lawhawk, That's the other problem with that type of argument is that once you make it, every crazy will latch onto it and join you in it, whether you want them or not. And then you get the blame for all their crimes and misdeeds because they supposedly acted in the name of your argument.
Bev and Andrew, This administration has been positively nasty to women. It's shameful that women's groups haven't called them on this.
I am constantly astounded at how easily the Democrats will lie about their own positions and the Republican positions. And you are correct, the Republicans are stupid about presenting their own positions. It seems that no matter how stupid someone is (like Akin) there are always Republicans ready to embrace their stupidity.
I hope Romney changes this. He really has struck me as a much smarter version of the usual Republican.
Ellen, They have been very nasty to women, but again, you wouldn't know that unless you really kept up with insider news. Even during the entire "war on women" garbage, the MSM never mentioned things like the pay difference or the harassment allegations.
Doc, Romney is a very different kind of Republican. He's much smarter about selling his ideas and how to run a campaign. I think that will ultimately carry over as well in terms of his administration. Plus, he seems to be very good at picking quality people, which will help a lot as well. I'm looking forward to the future. :)
Andrew, I blame the MSM for letting the Democrats get away with this. I'm hoping that now that there is a more conservative media, things will begin to change.
DUQ, That's certainly been a big part of it. Over the past 30 years, the MSM has been the gatekeeper of what the public got to know and they have protected the Democrats from all of their mistakes. Times are changing now though and we'll have to see how it goes in the future for them.
Reading the bits you've outlined of the platform, I have to say I'm a bit disgusted. this is nothing more than a list of bribes -- govenment jobs for you, research money for you, etc. There is no coherent policy here, just a bunch of payouts.
Doc, That's all the Democrats are now. Their only "big idea" is tax the rich. Other than that, they have no ideology left, just a wishlist of things their coalition members want.
Andrew, I agree completely about the need for the Republicans to learn to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
Andrew,
I am glad the founders were honest historians. The reason for the 2nd Amendment was the history of Greek City-States. They had found the City-States citizens that had the most freedoms and kept them the longest were the citizens who kept their arms and were part of the militia, which is really a citizen army not a standing professional army.
Speaking of lies, damned lies and horrible spousal communication, as reported by my dad, NW Ohio resident and Tea Partier extraordinaire:
"When Barry was in Toledo Monday, he told the UAW crowd that his first car was a Jeep and it was shiny and had a comfortable seat. What a crock of shit they both are. The Dems have swallowed the KoolAid and we could be headed for serious trouble if the Republicans don't start fighting back and calling out the lies the Dems are spreading."
Doc, That's what the Democratic Party has become -- a collection of grievances, not a political party.
Terry, That's true. There is no core ideology left at the heart of the Democratic Party. They want to tax the rich to please their socialist ranks and to hope to gain money they can use to please the rest of their ranks. Beyond that, they are just a collection of grievances they want addressed through the law.
Joel, I think they made the right call. I think private gun ownership makes the US impossible to conquer and does keep the government in line. That said, we're only talking in the most extreme cases. Other than that, the issue really doesn't apply.
Eric, It will be very interesting to see how Ohio turns out. I'm not sure yet because it will rely so much on voter turnout, but I think Romney will ultimately carry it.
I don't think the Republicans should lie (and I know you're not saying that) but they absolutely need to take a page from the Democrats and learn how to spin their ideas and what to present.
Liberals have always had to lie about what they believe. If they didn't nobody would buy their line of b.s. They have worked hard to find marketing professionals to put a nice spin on what they say. That said, with the birth of internet and 24/7 analysis, it is a lot easier for folks to challenge what is said. I'm also not sure how many voters really get deeply into platforms. It seems to be more about soundbites and getting media allies to spin appropriately. I do think and hope enough people are so disgusted and disappointed that they have pretty much turned off the soppish rhetoric.
Ed, Right, I'm not saying lie, but I am saying learn the art of selling. You can change the image of your product a lot by emphasizing different aspects and using different ways to explain your product.
Jed, To me it isn't really how many people go read the platforms. I see it more as part of a pattern how the two sides work. Our side is stupid and has no awareness of how they are perceived. The other side knows exactly how they need to come across. I find that depressing.
Andrew, I agree. Coke and Pepsi pick and choose what they play up and what they downplay. There's no reason a political party couldn't do the same.
This has been the story of my life. The Democrats are much better showmen. They give better speeches, have glitzier conventions and sound better until you find out how they act when they get power.
Ed, That's exactly right. Unfortunately, too many higher-ups in the party equate marketing with lying and want no part of it.
Nightcrawler, I've seen the same thing and it is frustrating. The only time this wasn't true was during the Reagan years when Reagan and many of the talking heads were just head and shoulders above the Democrats.
Andrew
I have always found the "extremist" label to be a weak argument at best. I have found that the arguments made by people that use the label 9 times out of 10 are more aptly applied to them.
Nothing a conservative says will ever be acquiessed as "reasonable" by the other side. No matter how much you try to equivocate they will simply use labels, ad hominem attacks and if needed misreport what was said.
The use of the term "we all belong to the govenrment" is offensive. It is counter to everything this nation was founded on. The minute we cannot explain to the general public at large that the government exists to serve its people and not the other way around for fear of being seen as extreme ......
Well at that point we are lost. Boortz did a good job skewering the Dems for this. It is not just about marketing our issues in ways that make sense. Tearing apart the issues of the other side. Showing them for what they are that is just as important.
The problem with Conservatives all too often is that when someone does stand up and counters their argument effectively we allow ourselves to be cowled by the Democrats who we think control the narrative.
I remember explaining to my Dad about the Oregon State Insurance department sending that woman an unsigned letter stating she could not have new cancer drugs because they would only prolong her life but she could have assisted suicide paid for. He initially started yelling at me not to make such wild statements. Told me the conservative websites detailing it were crackpot. When I showed him an article by a Catholic Charities group explaining it and linking to the text of it he apologized. He assumed that something like that if true would be reported on the evening news.
This is what we have to deal with.....
Indi, I don't agree.
First, forget this idea about arguing with other side. That's a red herring. They don't matter. Politics is about winning over the people in the middle who can be won over. And they are in the middle because they are turned off by extremist rhetoric.
The way to win them over is to (1) appear sane, (2) show them why our policies are better, and (3) show them why the other side's policies don't work. Right now, conservatives are bad at all three parts of that.
And the problem with conservatives isn't that they are unwilling to support people who argue effectively, it's that too few argue effectively. Indeed, the contrary, too many conservatives simply want to hear someone screaming names like "socialist" and "anti-American." That kind of talk not only does not win the debate, it turns off the very people you are trying to convince.
There are indeed some RINOs who undercut everything conservatives try, but they are few and far between these days. These days, the problem is the people who promote things that only 5-6% of the population believe as somehow mainstream conservative thinking.
And again, the problem isn't that the Democrats control the narrative, it's conservative who don't understand how they come across to the people they need to win over.
Andrew,
The best thing the Republicans do with their platform is that they have the worst people peddling it.
"Read it. You will love it like I do." says an earnest but stupid voter for the abomination.
Joel, That's true. You're not going to see anyone too credible pushing the platform on people.
I'll tell you though, I wish Romney would step in and completely reform the process. A real platform should be maybe 10 points long tops and no more than 2 pages (1 preferably) so that people will actually read it and tell other people how much they agree with it.
The initial omission of God and Jerusalem from the Democratic platform (and the messy way it was reinserted) is a seam in the Democrats' armor I'm sure some superpac will put to good use.
Anthony, I think so and I hope so. It sounds like a huge mistake for a party that gets the support of 70% of the Jewish vote.
Post a Comment