Caltechgirl takes on the Left.....

... Or the DNC Follies part ∞
I'm sure by now most of you are familiar with the results of the Presidential election. George W. Bush won, with a majority of the popular vote and the requisite numbers in the electoral college. Of particular importance was the President's 118,000 vote victory in OH, that secured the victory for him.

In the days after the election, democrats were stunned. Greeting each other with lines like, "What happened?" and "How could these people be so DUMB?" was as common as, "Hello, how are you?." This, of course, led to an inevitable search for answers. How could their guy have lost? He was smart, tall, rich, and above all not that idiot Chimpy McShrub who refused to speak proper English, flouted the UN and went after the terrorists on his own. So they turned to exit polls, only to learn that most Americans ACTUALLY have values and ACTUALLY care that their President has them too. Now, I've heard any number of cheap explanations as to what "the importance of moral values" means, from outlawing abortion to opposing gay marriage to simply standing for something consistently.

There were two constant themes to the whining of the democratic cognoscenti. The first of these was gay marriage. Democrats charged that Republicans intentionally put gay marriage propositions on the ballots in an effort to bring more conservative voters to the polls. So what? If the people of a state or county or city care about their area's laws with regard to ANY issue, from zoning to gay rights, it should be on the ballot.

Frankly, it's my opinion that the democrats shot themselves in the foot with the gay rights issue.

Let's take a look at the timeline, shall we? (all dates found here)
2/2004:
MA courts uphold same-sex marriage
SF mayor Gavin Newsom opens City Hall for same-sex marriages
Bush asks for constitutional amendment banning gay marriage(FMA), huge backlash
Mayor of NY holds same-sex weddings
3/2004:
Lawsuit to stop CA weddings filed
NYC rejects same-sex marriages
Same-sex couples go to NJ, Canada to be wed
MA bans gay weddings
7/2004:
Marriage amendment dies in the senate
8/2004:
Court rules gay unions are null and void
11/2004:
Presidential/General election

By making such a stink over the FMA, and then guaranteeing its defeat in congress, it's my opinion that the democrats nearly forced the issue onto any number of state and local ballots. When people care about an issue, right or wrong, in this society, we put it up for a vote. That's exactly what happened this year. I believe that if the left had not rammed same-sex marriage down the throats of the American public, it would not have been on so many ballots.

And BTW, I'm for equal rights for gay couples.

The other explanation that the democrats concocted was abortion. It seems to me that the left is obsessed with this issue. Sure, a lot of us over here on the other side don't like it, but we have more important issues to be concerned with, like WAR and DEBT and JOBS. Whether or not Sally can abort her fetus doesn't really matter in the face of these more pressing issues. Maslow's hierarchy, people. Maybe abortion is bandied about so cavalierly because it's the one issue that the democratic party and its talking heads remain consistent on year after year. In fact, the only time I even heard abortion mentioned during this campaign season was in a commercial for Barbara Boxer's senate campaign that was almost exclusively devoted to preserving "a woman's right to choose". We didn't hear a lot of this from either candidate for President, did we?

Yet all of a sudden, the democrats are convinced that abortion is the underlying cause of their failure to gain the White House. A few weeks after the election (December), they were saying this:

"After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters."

Politics often makes strange bedfellows, but this is equivalent to hiring a professional, if you catch my drift. In fact, John Kerry “told the group they needed new ways to make people understand that they didn’t like abortion.” Kerry told them “Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party.”"

The upshot of all of this is that as we get closer and closer to the election of a new DNC chair, the balance appears to be shifting toward former Rep. Tim Roemer, a Catholic from Indiana who does not support abortion rights. Roemer's candidacy is supported by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Roemer seems to be playing the party tune, however. Recently, he said:

"I'm not asking to rewrite the platform," (on ABC's "This Week", quoted here) "We have a majority of our party, an overwhelming majority of our party, that is pro-choice, and I respect that. But I think we should not only be more inclusive on this issue, especially in the Midwest and the South if a candidate has those views, we should have them in our party."

The he said,

"...the Democratic Party lost 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the United States. We have four senators, Democrat senators, left in the Deep South." He said Democrats also have lost ground with Hispanic voters, "churchgoing African-American voters" and Catholics."

Roemer is running against other strong candidates, including Howard Dean and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, but has serious backing. Whoever wins, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the years to come, especially with regard to judicial appointments and the lifespan of Roe V. Wade. A win for Roemer may be a serious defeat for Hillary Clinton, because a kinder-gentler democratic party won't pick her as their nominee in 2008.