The 74,000 seat stadium is out. The 20,000 seat stadium is in. There’s a 20% chance of rain, see + the Dems were having a hard time filling it.
Democrats today announced that President Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will move from the vast Bank of America stadium to the much-smaller Time Warner indoor arena.
While organisers blamed weather forecasts of lightning, the switch means that Obama has avoided the possibility of having to accept his party’s nomination before a partially-empty stadium. Just hours earlier, officials had been insisting the speech would go ahead in the stadium ‘rain or shine’.
‘We have been monitoring weather forecasts closely and several reports predict thunderstorms in the area, therefore we have decided to move Thursday’s proceedings to Time Warner Cable Arena to ensure the safety and security of our delegates and convention guests,’ said convention chief Steve Kerrigan.
But convention sources exclusively told the MailOnline on Tuesday that the real reason behind the switch was fears within the Obama campaign that there would be large numbers of empty seats in the 74,000-seater stadium. The Time Warner arena has a capacity of just over 20,000.
The chief meteorologist at a Charlotte television station took to Twitter to question the decision:
@itsreallybri Thursday night will likely be the best weather of the entire week. Don't blame them but could have called it earlier.—
Brad Panovich WCNC (@wxbrad) September 05, 2012
Alex Pappas of The Daily Caller reported:
“In a series of tweets on Wednesday morning after the news broke, Panovich said there’s only a 20 to 30 percent chance of rain or storms and argued that “if you are going to move inside for this small risk you could have done that days ago.”
Said Panovich: “My main point is if you were going to move inside for the small [weather] threat Thursday [,you] could have made that decision a week ago.”
“It’s a simple question.. if you had a
#Panthers game, Concert or Soccer match with a 20% chance of storms would you cancel 24hrs prior?” he asked.
Bret: God was taken out of the platform, why do that?Durbin: Well, I can just basically tell you if the narrative that is being presented on your station, and through your channel and your network is the Democrats are godless people, they ought to know better. God is not a franchise of the Republican party… (Bret: no, no, but) Those of us who believe in God and those of us who have dedicated our lives to helping others in the name of God, don’t want to take a second seat to anyone who is suggesting that one word out of the platform means the Democrats across America are godless, come on Bret.Bret: No, no, no – I don’t think that’s what’s being said; we’re reporting what’s in the platform – in 2008, God was mentioned once; in 2004, it was mentioned seven times; in 2000 it was mentioned four times, so it’s just a question… (Durbin: what’s the question) So the question is, why take it out this time?Durbin: What I’m basically saying to you is if you’re trying to draw some conclusion (Bret: I’m not trying to draw…) that the Democrats are godless, present your evidence, present your evidence.Bret: I’m just asking the question: why was the word taken out?Durbin: I’m just telling you, you are carping on a trifle. We know that both parties are are devoted to this country, both parties are God-fearing parties, let’s get on with the agenda about creating jobs in America about justice in this country.
Bret: And we’re going to talk about that in a second, we are talking about the platform here and there are two changes that we just noted, one is that God was taken out from 2008 to 2012 and two, that Jerusalem was not mentioned; I’m not drawing conclusions, I’m just asking why these changes were made.
Durbin: Bret, let me just say, I chaired the platform committee for two Democratic conventions. We produced the most unread document in the history of American politics, to suggest that this document and the insertion of two words here and one word there, now defines politics in America suggests to me that you’re not focusing on the real issues that American care about. (Bret: But senator, you know…) We want the American people to get back to work (Bret: I understand that…) We want to continue to create jobs.
Bret: And let’s talk about that in one second, but you know that Democrats in Tampa talked about the Republican platform and what was and what is not in there, so when I’m asking you about these two changes and two words, I’m just asking why, I’m not drawing conclusions.
Durbin: First, I’m telling you your conclusions are wrong if you’re drawing them, (Bret: I’m not) and secondly, let me tell you the first president to recognize the state of Israel was Harry Truman, a Democrat and every president since, Democrat and Republican, has stood closely with Israel. I know what’s going on here, (Bret: okay…) It’s an effort to justify Sheldon Adelson and the money he is spending in the name of really standing up for Israel (Bret: Listen), the Democrats and Republicans are committed to Israel’s future and security, and I’m one of them.
Bret: Understand, no Republican took those words out of the Democratic platform, so I’m just making the point.
Durbin: and your taking those two words coming out means our relationships with Israel has changed
Bret: No, I’m just asking the question.
Durbin: Is that fair?
Bret: I’m just asking why it was changed.
Durbin: Is that fair, is that balanced?
Bret: Why was it changed?
Durbin: I wasn’t on the platform committee…
Bret: I’m going to move on.
Gee, did he seem just a tad defensive, there? First it was Faux News presenting a faux narrative and Bret Baier drawing the wrong conclusion, how dare he? How dare he accuse Dick Durbin and Company of being Godless freaks. “Present your evidence! Present your evidence!”
Then somehow, #1 on Obama’s enemies List, the Dems’ Emmanuel Goldstein du Jour is drawn into it…
It’s an effort to justify Sheldon Adelson and the money he is spending in the name of really standing up for Israel (Bret: Listen), the Democrats and Republicans are committed to Israel’s future and security, and I’m one of them.
Tonight, the Democratic National Committee suspended the rules of the convention and inserted language regarding God and the State of Israel back to its platform. They had to vote three times to do it – and they had to lie to deem it passed, even though it was clear that the measure did not pass a voice vote in the chamber. The original 2012 Democratic Party platform had excised all mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.***
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, the head of the Democratic National Convention, got up and asked for a two-thirds vote on the amendments to the platform. He took a voice vote, with people stating aloud “aye” and “nay.”
The first time, he couldn’t determine if two-thirds of the voters had said “aye”; a loud “no” vote was heard. He asked for a second vote.
The second time, he couldn’t determine whether the voice vote had passed. Again. Villaraigosa looked around in confusion.
Finally, on the third attempt, Villaraigosa took a voice vote and simply declared, in the “opinion of the chair,” that it had been passed. There were widespread boos in the convention hall to the renewed inclusion of God and language about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And Villaraigosa was lying, in any case – there is no way that the voice vote had passed. Opponents stood up and protested, waving and shouting. The fix was in. The Democratic leadership had to ram a mention of God and a mention of Jerusalem through, violating their own rules, to avoid the fallout within their own ranks.
You can watch the vote, here.
Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker weighed in the fiasco:
I expected that the Democratic National Convention would feature one or more deeply embarrassing moments, when Democrats couldn’t help themselves from showing the world who they really are. The talk of patriotism and values, scripted for the prime time TV audience, was all a masquerade. The “low information voter” (i.e., the readily deceived) is the target of this Potemkin patriotism. I figured that, gathered together with like minded folks, Democrats would shoot off their mouths, say outrageous things, demonstrate in cringe-inducing fashion, and maybe let slip something really horrifying.
But I never suspected the party would officially reverse itself through a crooked vote, in public, when its attempt to undercut Israel and religion was exposed. I never thought that they would demonstrate their contempt for democratic procedures by visible example. And I never thought that they would boo God.
Big Journalism: Media Fail to Fact-Check Michelle’s Speech:
National Public Radio, among other mainstream media outlets, whitewashed First Lady Michelle Obama’s fib-filled speech to the Democratic National Convention last night. At the end of a roundup of perfunctory attempts to fact-check some of the Democrats’ speeches, NPR gave Mrs. Obama a clean bill of health: “As for first lady Michelle Obama’s address to the convention, the fact checkers don’t seem to have any faults to find.”
That is because they weren’t looking. The basic premise of Mrs. Obama’s speech–that she and her husband had struggled economically like so many other Americans–is false. Not only did they enjoy many advantages that others do not, but CNS News reports that Barack Obama inherited half a million dollars in stock from his grandmother, a bank vice president who Michelle misleadingly cited as a victim of gender discrimination.
These fibs are not new for the Obama camp. The UK Daily Mailreported during the 2008 campaign that Michelle Obama has benefited from vast exaggerations of her “working-class origins,” substituting a humble single-room residence for what was in fact a middle-class home, and obscuring the fact that her family shared in the spoils from the Democratic Party’s regime of (segregated) patronage in Richard Daley’s Chicago.
If we had a functioning Justice Department this guy would probably be cooling his heels in Leavenworth. Instead he’s given the VIP treatment at the DNC.
But remember, Obama is for the middle class or something.
The Obama campaign rolled out the red carpet this week for a former top Energy Department official who was at the center of the ill-fated government loan to Solyndra, a California solar panel firm that wound up in bankruptcy.
Steven J. Spinner joined other top fundraisers for a VIP tour of the Democratic National Convention floor in Charlotte Monday evening, posing and waving for a photographer while standing behind the podium. When he saw ABC News cameras, however, he ran for the exit.
Well, so much for transparency.
Remember – this is the Most “Open and Accessible” Convention in History.
The guy actually spoke earlier tonight, too. He’s much braver when he has a script, and no ones asking him pesky questions.
The Republican convention was relentlessly on-point, perhaps too much so.
That’s not true of the Democratic convention, which has a decidedly schizophrenic nature. “Centrists” speaking calmly of “conservative values” in primetime — and red-meat radicalism in all the hours before 10 PM.
As a rule, Democrats win when they run as mainstream conservatives — not as radicals. Thus, a born again Christian from Georgia named Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976 — and a “new” Democrat from Arkansas named Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Even Chicago’s Barack Obama — who made sure you knew he wasn’t against all wars (just the bad one) — was able to pull off the maneuver.
But if the first night of the Democratic Convention is any clue, the ruse might be up.
Oh dear…Obama camp forced to walk back the DNC’s heinous opening video: DNC video: Not our video, says Obama campaign:
An Obama aide emails that the Charlotte host committee, not the Obama campaign, produced the video:
“The video in question was produced and paid for by the host committee of the city of Charlotte. It’s neither an OFA nor a DNC video, despite what the Romney campaign is claiming. It’s time for them to find a new target for their faux outrage.”
That’s super. Now how do they explain the “doing things together” rhetoric?