Okay, here is a perfect example of the sort of thing that keeps clobbering us. And once again, it comes from one of the champions of that fabulous "old establishment" wing of the party. Joementum? Nope, Tim Roemer.
From today's WaPo op-ed, "Repairing the Democratic Tent"...
As a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the Sept. 11 commission), I sincerely hoped to have a conversation with Democrats about our challenges in communicating a national security message and about how we come together to talk about the many values issues that unite us as Democrats and that also figured in the 2004 election.
Unfortunately, instead of these important issues getting the attention they deserved, the abortion issue dominated much of the discussion of my campaign for the DNC chairmanship. The reason was that I am "pro-life," holding a different personal view from many Democrats. Opposition to my candidacy (which I ended this week) from the Democratic "choice" constituency was vigorous and unrelenting. Fair enough -- we disagree. But let's take a look at the current politics of abortion and its effect on how voters view the Democratic Party.
Shorter version? I got snubbled, so here's some nice talking points for the Republicans to use, where they can quote a Democrat. Better yet, I'll happily reinforce their talking points while I'm at it. That'll learn 'em for making me have to find a boring private sector job.
He really gives away the point in his own example...
Meanwhile Bush campaigned throughout the country with former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, two moderate pro-choice Republicans. This Republican two-pronged approach was again apparent in early January, when the new Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, appointed JoAnn Davidson -- who is pro-choice -- as co-chairman of the RNC.
Exactly right. Once every four years they push their moderates forward publically, use them for political gain, and forget them 5 minutes later. They throw powerless sinecures to a few, but leave the real power slots to non-moderates.
And most importantly, said moderates don't throw public temper tantrums about in the WaPo op-ed. With far less power and access in their party, they play "good soldier". Meanwhile the Roemer wing has owned every aspect of our party's operation, and when they lose one slot...bam, time for the public party insulting.
This is why these folks need to go. Not because of their ideology, but because they believe they have a "divine right' to control things and get their way. The flavor of the month in establishment circles is to "moderate" (which is meaningless as a term), ergo, all must follow. And by god they must be allowed to retain control and get their way...or they'll sell the party out under the pretense of making it stronger.
Please name for me the last time Giuliani publically insulted his party, or a major constituency of it. When he wasn't named Director of Homeland Security, he didn't sneak an insulting op-ed into the NYT, he sucked up a dealt.
Take a lesson, Tim...or feel free to go to the other side. It would be a gift to us. You can make public insults to them when you don't get your way, or a nice job, rather than us.