Former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer told “an audience at the National Press Club that he has been asked by representatives of the Democratic National Committee [including Howard Dean] to speak for the party on social issues at local Democrat functions.” More below …
However, he lost to former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, an abortion advocate who lost the presidential nomination to John Kerry but found himself the darling of pro-abortion groups and the party’s liberal wing.
Although abortion advocates ran a fierce campaign against Roemer — snubbing him from meetings and booing him at gatherings — Dean decided he would be a valuable speaker.
“They’ve reached out and asked if I want to go to different states, give Jefferson-Jackson speeches, reach out and talk about some of the issues I talked about in the DNC race,” Roemer told the National Press Club.
According to a Jan. 9 Associated Press/ABC story on Roemer’s candidacy for national chair:
My two cents: We have room in the Democratic party for those who oppose abortion but who agree with the right of choice. Roemer will help bridge gaps in strategic local appearances. And, I’m glad that Howard Dean is reaching wider:
He criticized spending by the Bush administration and said that running deficits will prevent the country from mounting a strong defense against its foes. He also said President Bush and other Republicans launched divisive issues during the campaign, such as gay marriage. Dean said the country needs to close its divisions.
The Chairman said the deficits built under the Bush administration, plus policies that Dean and other Democrats present said make life harder for rural residents, will leave the Republicans vulnerable at the polls in upcoming elections.
“I think the Democratic Party is in the center,” Dean said. “We’re more conservative than Republicans are when it comes to money.”
Carol Joffe, via the Rockridge Instiute:
You are a brave woman ;).
I just wanted to make a point on this comment, but brought it out of Pastor Dan’s diary to here:
And how about tolerance? Right now, my diary on Roemer — over at Kos — is. Well, let’s just say things aren’t going well. I’ll probably get zeroed out of existence.
Abortion isn’t a yes, do it kinda thing for me. It’s terribly serious and it affects a potential life. I believe in choice 100%, but I also think we should honor people in the Democratic party who are anti-abortion, so long as they are willing to allow others to make their own choice.
Are you not there describing someone who is, by definition, pro-choice? Any number of pro-choice people are also anti-abortion… they just don’t feel that they should make personal medical or moral decisions for someone else. And if that is the case, why would anyone need to separate their views by calling themselves ‘pro-life, but for giving people the choice’ as just opposed to calling themselves ‘pro choice’? It sounds more like a Republican type framing than anything else.
Thanks so much, Nanette. You are terribly kind. I needed your soothing words. (And Lorraine wrote me the nicest personal note to ask how I was taking it all.) I wish I’d never written the damn diary on Kos because, at heart, I am a coward and I can’t bear too many slings and arrows. There’ve been some brutal ones. Sigh.
I do think that we need to inch away from letting the right define us as those abortion people, and instead put the onus on them for failing to provide heatlh care for infants, children, and mothers — for starters. (Dads should get some good care too :):))
I glanced over the kos thread… you are doubly brave! You handled yourself well, though, as did many of the others even through disagreements.
It’s a good topic, but I’m not really sure Roemer is the one to be representing it (especially after reading about him). But I agree, overall, that we have to stop letting the right define us on this (and other) topics, and start putting them on defensive for their failures. Including the right that consider themselves religious, as I believe most or all of the major religions have instructions for caring for the poor and the marginalized.
Protecting reproductive and women’s health rights should be part of an overall package, not giving in at all on it, but changing the ground that it’s discussed on to our advantage.