« Rosemary Kennedy, RIP | Main | St. Stanislaus Votes »
January 09, 2005
Hat into the ring
Roemer says he's up for DNC Chair
This isn't brand-new news: it's been discussed in various places over the past month - here's a Catholic Exchange piece that mentions the former Indiana rep's interest in the post and his 95% rating from NRLC. But I guess since he discussed it on ABC...it's more news today than yesterday.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1650363
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hat into the ring:
Comments
In the article, Roemer gives Clinton's economic policies and "counseling" credit for the 11% reduction in abortion rates during his tenure.
What amazes me is that Kerry never made this argument, even though it was easy to make. Clinton had promised to make abortion "legal, safe, and rare".
Now, I don't believe Clinton or his policies actually deserves the credit. I suspect the reduction in the abortion rate is due to many factors: the ultrasound, the vocal pro-life movement, an increase in contraception, and the disparate birthrate between 'red' and 'blue' families.
But my point is not that Clinton deserves the credit -- it's that the Democrats don't even try to give him credit!
I guess bragging that abortion rates are lower is seen as a losing strategy, because it admits that abortion is in some sense bad?
Posted by: Lawrence King at Jan 10, 2005 3:45:32 AM
Talking about it in such terms, Lawrence, would make their base nervous. So they say nothing. I recall NARAL types citing the reduction in the number of abortions as proof positive that women were being denied "access".
I'm not sure how excited I am by the prospect of a pro-lifer carrying water for the likes of Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy et al.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 10, 2005 6:01:33 AM
As someone who just this election decided enough was enough with the Democrats, I can tell you the move from at least saying 'safe, legal and rare' to not even pretending to think it should be rare really got to me.
To me it was like they closed the door by so totally shutting out any dialogue over this issue. And, they left me on the other side.
Nicole
Posted by: nicole at Jan 10, 2005 7:27:48 AM
The Dems are missing the boat if they think they can siphon off a few Republican votes (or enough to make any difference) by "broadening their base" on the abortion issue.
All the talk has been about the two death issues for Democrats: Abortion and gay rights. It would seem to me that they go hand in hand in the minds of many, myself included. Bending a little on one issue (either one) while still trumpeting the other would still leave people with no desire to even consider the Democratic candidate.
There's always hope, but pro-abortionists and pro-homosexualists are the base of the Democratic party. I don't think they can blast away at their foundation and hope to offset it with new supporters.
That would be tantamount to the Republicans throwing out the Believers in the hope of picking up the unbelievers.
Posted by: Paul N. at Jan 10, 2005 7:51:33 AM
Lawrence,
Don't forget the likely effect of law in reducing the rates of abortion. In the 1990s states were finally able to pass various notification and waiting period provisions. One study from the Heritage Foundation found that there was a significant correlation between such laws and a reduced abortion rate. Of course the DNC was often fighting tooth and nail against such provisions so it is interesting when pro-life Democrat Catholics make claims like, "Well, during the Clinton Administration abortion rates went down," but they don't unpack the reasons why. What Clinton social policies helped reduce that rate? Would it have been the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that liberals deplored and said would lead to increased poverty? Was it that drive-delivery bill that Clinton spoke so much about in 1996 campaign that would have required insurance companies to cover 2 days of stay in the hospital after delivery (I am not sure it ever passed but it is indicative of the hold your hand do little nice things approach of the Clinton Administration)? They never point to specifics because I am afraid that there are none but because those Democrats care about the poor more that means if we elect them we will have fewer abortions!
But I still think Roemer's throwing his hat in the ring is a good thing. This is the moment for pro-life Democrats to seize the day and take back their party.
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Jan 10, 2005 8:04:30 AM
I don't know much at all about the inner Dem circles (particularly PL Dems, which seem rare). Is Roemer going to seek true change, or is would he be simply the token PLifer?
Once Kucinich changed his stripes, I figured PL Dems were a lost cause.
Posted by: c matt at Jan 10, 2005 4:42:05 PM
I saw this this in the paper this morning:
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party said Monday that it would be "extremely foolish" for Democrats to chose someone who opposes abortion rights to lead the party.
Phil Johnston, who heads the Democrats in losing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry's home state, spoke out amid news of former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer's decision to seek the national party's chairmanship.
"The fact that we lost the 2004 presidential race by a narrow margin should not result in the abandonment of our party's core principles," Johnston said.
Posted by: Laura at Jan 11, 2005 4:37:14 PM
Regarding Phil Johnston... that's his opinion, and so much for being the all inclusive party. The core of the Democratic party is rotten... it is the party of death. It's high time the Democrats for Life had representation, as the dems as they are now lack the dignity and respect for life and have literally stunted the growth of this country that they claim to love.
Posted by: Faith at Jan 12, 2005 7:45:32 AM
