Why did the Democrats have to amend the platform about God and Isreal
By Fatcat44
@Fatcat44 (1141)
United States
September 6, 2012 4:39pm CST
I find it very interesting over what all occurred during the DNC with the amending of their platform statements.
The platform has been passed without the mention of God and Isreal, which had been in the platform since the 70's. Why after it had been pointed out that they amended it back in? Here are some thoughts.
1. The democrats have a lot of athiest in the party. Did they leave out these statements to please these. It appears that the vote on the amend failed and there was not the 75% majority needed to amend it.
2. They say that 99.9% of blacks are voting for Obama, along with a majority of Hispanic. These two groups of the population are very religious and the did not want to lose these votes.
What do you think of this. Was it a simple over-site as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz says, are was it a change in their values?
3 people like this
6 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Sep 12
Personally, I could careless about Israel, or GOD in the DNC platform. I am sure that they don't mention all of the other countries in this world, so why start pointing out certain ones?
As to GOD, I would rather have that be up to the individual person, not the entire party. If someone wants to talk about GOD, than go for it, but the Democratic party is very diverse, and they shouldn't limit their platform.
But, those are my personal feelings.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
7 Sep 12
I hope you're not going to be offended but the expression is "I couldn't care less," not, "I could careless."
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Sep 12
Best, I always screw that up, sorry
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
9 Sep 12
This is just political posturing in hopes to clinch more votes. Bottom line, as with the Republican platform, the Democrat platform is simply just words. Nobody is bound to follow the platform and can not possibly reflect everybody. They are simply trying to point out the majority opinion. Just because I am a registered republican does NOT mean I agree with the platform. In fact I am a registered republican simply so that I can caucus.
I believe people have given far more store to these platforms this election season on both sides. No one person probably agrees with every piece of their partys platform.
I believe this is just taking away from the real issues.
1 person likes this
shucks thanks 
@Citizen_Stuart (2016)
•
9 Sep 12
That's an unusually sensible post for the "Politics" interest ;-)
1 person likes this
@peavey (16936)
• United States
7 Sep 12
Just another political ploy. I don't think it was either. I think it was a planned situation so Obama looked like the hero because they know many people wouldn't vote for him if his party stood for no God and against Israel. I think they decided that it wasn't time just yet to declare such a sharp departure from traditional American culture and wanted to make sure we knew it, but that we also knew the athestic sentiment was strong.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Sep 12
An Obama campaign source told the outlet that “Obama had seen the language prior to the convention,” but that he “did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem.”
No, I think he over estimated his popularity. I think he truly believed it wouldn't be an issue, and when the blowback on social sites said otherwise, he stepped in to FORCE a vote that put it back in. He's screwed up big time on this one. Long time Democrats have been leaving the party due to Obama's stand against the Catholic church, he ought to have realized that a large majority of his African American and Hispanic supporters are members of churches and believe in God.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
7 Sep 12
It was taken out,then Obama said to put it back in.I think it was all a ploy for Obama could say..."I fixed it". I think it was something to distract from the lack luster the DNC was having...Obama fixing a problem, distracts from alot of things. And since NO ONE is saying why it was taken out in the first place...just makes for the ploy to be the reason.
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
7 Sep 12
Did you hear the vote to put it back in. It did not pass, they did it three times, and finally the DNC big wigs just said it passed, and the crowd booed. The crowd appeared that they did not want it in. So it appeared to be a bigger deal than many say it was.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
10 Sep 12
Yeah, I saw it... and wondered...why was there no vote to take it out in the first place?!?! But I felt sorry for the LA mayor...he was literally made a fool of! Poor guy! But honestly, I thought the "I's" were more...the "no's" were just held out longer.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Sep 12
While the campaign at first said Obama had seen the language prior to the convention, it later said he did not learn of the issue until Wednesday morning,
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80801.html#ixzz25njUgNNX
Political expediency on Obama's part was why it was put back in.
It had been part of the Democrats platform from 1972, my question is WHY was it removed in the first place? And WHY was it that it so obviously had to be FORCED back in against the delegates wishes?
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
9 Sep 12
It looks like the ayes had it.
I was displeased, incredibly, but understand the reason it was put back in.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
9 Sep 12
You are the only person I've seen that feel the ayes had it.
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
7 Sep 12
What are you talking about?
God is mentioned on page 2. Israel the topic of two paragraphs on page 26, and mentioned therein several times. See for yourself: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Sep 12
http://freebeacon.com/obama-saw-democratic-platform-before-convention/
An Obama campaign source told the outlet that “Obama had seen the language prior to the convention,” but that he “did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem.”
Why was it taken out in the first place?
