Via CNN we find that Roemer lashes out in DNC chairman race
The campaign for Democratic chairman turned contentious over the weekend when Tim Roemer lashed out at criticism of his views on abortion and accused opponents of negative campaigning.The candidate told a gathering in St. Louis that he wanted to have “a conversation” on issues but that he is “having trouble doing this because of negative campaigning and litmus tests.”
As much as I oppose abortion, I must admit, Roemer has to know that he is fighting a losing battle (and was from the begininng). He has the same chance of becoming DNC chair as I do.
As such, Oliver Willis gets it right:
Dogmatically being anti-choice, combined with a sad habit of voting against Democratic economic policies but in favor of Republican ones may be necessary to hold on to a House seat, but for a guy who’s supposed to keep the party together, that’s a non-starter.
In the same post, Oliver makes the following comment:
I, and most Democrats, do not believe in abortion on demand anyplace, anywhere, and any time - but the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body is a fundamental bedrock of the values of the Democratic party.
He is quite right: abortion is a foundational issue for the Democratic Party and hence Roemer has no chance (any more than a pro-choicer has a shot at being RNC chair).
However, while I will take him at his word as to his position on abortion, and even that it may reflect a signficant portion of the Democratic Party’s view of the subject, but (and this is a big but) the voting record of Democrats in Congress (en masse) and of the rhetoric that comes out of the Democratic estalblishment is that the abortion on demand in the standard. And it is this area that the Democrats have a serious problem–there appears to be no reasonable restriction on abortion that the party will support–the most striking example being partial birth abortion, or whatever you want to call it. There is also the fact that Democrats tend to oppose fairly moderate reforms, such as waiting periods, parental notification or promotion of adoption. It is also clear that despite generic fulminations from Senators about “mainstream” nominees, that the main issue that blocked every one of Bush’s Appeals Court nominees last term was abortion.
While President Clinton did speak of making abortion “safe, legal and rare” is it unclear to me that any actual action by the Democratic Party has moved the country in that direction. And if anything, from a wholly political/PR point of view, the Democratic Party has an image of being for any and all abortions, any time, any place. I do think that that image is one they need to rectify, if such is even possible.
Motion to overturn Roe vs. Wade
McCorvey filing a Motion 60 to overturn Roe vs. Wade today:
Background . . . .
In October, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied McCorvey’s Rule 60 motion asking the Supreme Court to reverse the case based on a change in circumstances followin…
Trackback by Pajama Hadin — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 6:32 pm
I think the opposite side of that argument is that the woman has already made a choice about what to do with her body by the time she’s contemplating an abortion. But I also think I’d say that anti-abortion advocates wish to extend that right of self-control a few months earlier.
Willis is being typically disingenous, saying things that have virtually no meaning, since the Democratic party proper supports de facto abortion on demand and “walks the walk” of that position.
That little crack about “anti-choice” pretty much gave away Willis’ position.
And Willis doesn’t answer Roemer’s most telling question:
“”Republicans have a big tent; why can’t we?” he asked.”
Indeed.
Comment by bryan — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 6:33 pm
Bryan,
I would, of course, agree. I oppose the idea of abortions–however, from a pure PR/politics perspective it is clear that the Dems have a problem they appear unwilling to fix.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 8:10 pm
I’d love to see a pro-life democratic movement, and I really believe it will happen,
in about 100 years.
Comment by Zed — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 8:27 pm
A few months ago (ok, more like a year)there was a telling article regarding the abortion issue in Texas. The author was making the argument that the Republican take-over of the legislature, etc., had impacted abortion rights.
The entire argument sprang from the premise that abortions were down — therefore it was obvious that the Republicans were doing something to block them. There was not even a nod to the idea that both sides would like abortions to be “rare”; instead, the whole unstated — and perhaps unnoticed — premise of the article was that support for choice/family planning meant we needed to have more and more abortions, and that a falling number of them was bad news (without any investigation into why the numbers dropped).
Comment by Steven L — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 8:37 pm
While President Clinton did speak of making abortion “safe, legal and rare�? is it unclear to me that any actual action by the Democratic Party has moved the country in that direction.
Comprehensive sex ed?
I’d love to see a pro-life democratic movement, and I really believe it will happen,
in about 100 years.
That’s about how I feel about a pro-choice republican movement (that actually holds some sway within the party, I should add).
Comment by jpe — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 9:12 am
Abortion on Demand?
Steven Taylor agrees with Oliver Willis that Tim Roemer’s anti-abortion position disqualifies him from being chair of the DNC. Taylor adds, though,
[T]he Democrats have a serious problem�there appears to be no reasonable restriction on abortion t…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 9:19 am
Those darn democrats, if it wasn’t for their pro-choice stance…
A member of the governing board of the nation’s largest black denomination said Social Security is in trouble today because baby boomers aborted much of the generation that would have supported their retirement.
Bishop George McKinney of the Church of God in Christ said, “Part of the problem that we’re seeing now with Social Security has to do with the fact that 40 to 50 million people who have been killed through abortions have not taken their role as productive citizens.”
Now that is a good unselfish attitude.
Comment by The Misanthrope — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 10:51 am
In my view, the problem with the Democrats is not that they endorse abortion on demand, it that they support all the extremes of abortion advocates. From the studies I’ve seen, the percentage of absolute pro-abortion and the absolute anti-abortion forces has remained the same. What has changed is the center (of which I am a member), which reluctantly acknowledges that abortion is here to stay, but opposes the extremes (late-term abortion, non-notification of parents, no counseling, etc.) has shifted from pro-abortion to anti-abortion because of this. Do the Democrats really want to fall on the sword of abortion over something as odious as late-term abortion?
Comment by paladin — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 12:52 pm
A Rant On Abortion (Michael Demmons)
I got a little irritated today when I read two posts about abortion - one by Oliver Willis and the other by Stephen Ta…
Trackback by Dean's World — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 4:47 pm
Abortion and Politics
Time for me to vent a little. Let’s start it off with Oliver Willis:I, and most Democrats, do not believe in abortion on demand anyplace, anywhere, and any time - but the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body is a fundamental bedr…
Trackback by Gay Orbit — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 4:51 pm
[…] dy is a fundamental bedrock of the values of the Democratic party. Exactly right. To which Stephen Taylor replies: the voting record of Democrats in Congress … is that the abortion on de […]
Pingback by Gay Orbit » Abortion and Politics — Wednesday, January 19, 2024 @ 10:45 pm