2008 Woodie Awards
Democrats are alienating pro-lifers
Reflections
Anthony Maalouf
Issue date: 2/8/05 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 2 next >
As President Bush completes his State of the Union speech, the Democratic Party looks for a new chairman, and it seems that former presidential candidate Howard Dean has it in the bag. Dean?s main opponent, Tim Roemer, was handicapped in this race from the beginning. Why? It?s because Roemer is pro-life, a big no-no for the Democratic Party.
Tim Roemer served on the 9-11 Commission and was a member of Congress as a Democrat representing a chiefly Republican district. Not too bad, but to the elites, that doesn?t matter. It is funny how one issue defines a person?s worthiness for leadership.
"Don?t litmus test me!" Roemer pleaded last month to his fellow Democrats, but who is listening? Roemer?s words are falling on deaf ears of a party that is a captive of the prochoice movement. Despite the Democrats? losses in the lasttwo presidential elections, which polls attribute in part to the issue of abortion, the party has identified itself as one which supports abortion rights on demand. The slightest restriction (even on lateterm abortions) is seen as "bad for choice." They actually make this argument on the floor of the House and Senate.
I?m not weighing in on the race for the Democratic National Committee, just pointing out a reality. Senate Democrats call President Bush an ideologue on the abortion issue, regardless of the fact that Bush believes in exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which is really a moderate stance. It?s not totally prolife, but not supporting abortion on demand either. Yet, the example with Tim Roemer shows just how flexible the Democratic Party claims to be. It is hypocritical to claim one?s opponent as ideologically driven while your own party is behaving that exact way. Again, does anyone hear Roemer?s plea, "Don?t litmus test me"?
They love to call themselves the tolerant party. On the contrary, the tolerance they claim to have has never been extended to Democrats who hold the pro-life position on abortion. Just look at what went on right here in Pennsylvania. In 1992, Robert P. Casey, then Governor of Pennsylvania, was humiliated when the DNC refused to allow him to speak. It didn?t matter if Casey was going to speak about taxes. He was pro-life and that made him bad news in their book. Imagine this kind of treatment to the popular governor of a swing state!
Tim Roemer served on the 9-11 Commission and was a member of Congress as a Democrat representing a chiefly Republican district. Not too bad, but to the elites, that doesn?t matter. It is funny how one issue defines a person?s worthiness for leadership.
"Don?t litmus test me!" Roemer pleaded last month to his fellow Democrats, but who is listening? Roemer?s words are falling on deaf ears of a party that is a captive of the prochoice movement. Despite the Democrats? losses in the lasttwo presidential elections, which polls attribute in part to the issue of abortion, the party has identified itself as one which supports abortion rights on demand. The slightest restriction (even on lateterm abortions) is seen as "bad for choice." They actually make this argument on the floor of the House and Senate.
I?m not weighing in on the race for the Democratic National Committee, just pointing out a reality. Senate Democrats call President Bush an ideologue on the abortion issue, regardless of the fact that Bush believes in exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which is really a moderate stance. It?s not totally prolife, but not supporting abortion on demand either. Yet, the example with Tim Roemer shows just how flexible the Democratic Party claims to be. It is hypocritical to claim one?s opponent as ideologically driven while your own party is behaving that exact way. Again, does anyone hear Roemer?s plea, "Don?t litmus test me"?
They love to call themselves the tolerant party. On the contrary, the tolerance they claim to have has never been extended to Democrats who hold the pro-life position on abortion. Just look at what went on right here in Pennsylvania. In 1992, Robert P. Casey, then Governor of Pennsylvania, was humiliated when the DNC refused to allow him to speak. It didn?t matter if Casey was going to speak about taxes. He was pro-life and that made him bad news in their book. Imagine this kind of treatment to the popular governor of a swing state!
RSS Feed