I’m trying to be vaguely sympathetic to former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.) as he continues to struggle in the race for the DNC chairmanship, but he’s not making it easy.
Roemer’s policy positions put him squarely to the right of most of the party. He insists that doesn’t matter for the DNC post, and to a certain extent, that’s true. The party chair is an institutional/operational job, not a policy one.
But Roemer’s ideology is not wholly irrelevant, either. As party chair, he’d have to be an active cheerleader for the Dems, which in Roemer’s case, may mean trumpeting party positions with which he actively disagrees. Moreover, he’d have an active role in candidate recruitment, which gives some party members pause because of Roemer’s right-leaning beliefs on many issues.
As part of an effort to mount a spirited defense, Roemer joined his rivals over the weekend for another regional gathering, this time in St. Louis, where the former congressman got a little hot under the collar. His arguments, however, were less than persuasive.
[Roemer] 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.”
His voice rising, Roemer added, “I like a good fight. But don’t put my arms behind me. Give me a chance to talk about my values. And don’t litmus-test me.”
[…]
Roemer said Democrats should learn from the Republican Party, which has allowed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to play prominent roles. Both of them support abortion rights. “Republicans have a big tent; why can’t we?” he asked.
None of this makes sense.
Roemer believes there shouldn’t be a litmus test for the job. On this point, I agree. But who’s forcing Roemer into fighting with his arms behind him? It’s an open process; Roemer can argue to his heart’s content. If he wants to articulate his values, no one’s stopping him. I don’t even understand what he was trying to say here.
But the Giuliani/Schwarzenegger analogy is where Roemer really got off track. Indeed, he may have unintentionally been making his critics’ argument for them.
Roemer opposes abortion rights, voted against Clinton’s economic plan, and voted for Bush’s tax cuts. For Dems, that’s a tough nut to swallow, but Roemer wants to be heard. Fine. But pointing to the Republican model is ridiculous — anyone who believes the Republicans would select an RNC chairperson who’s pro-choice, supported Clinton’s ’93 plan, and voted against Bush’s tax cuts is obviously misguided.
Giuliani and Schwarzenegger are not GOP leaders; they’re props. They have no power or influence over the party’s direction, platform, or operations. In many instances, the two are Dem-lite, who the real party leaders (such as Tom DeLay) parade around to take the edge off of the party’s increasingly radical brand of conservatism.
In contrast, Roemer’s argument not withstanding, Dems already have a “big tent.” The new Senate Dem leader is an anti-abortion Mormon from Nevada. Party leaders feature a tremendous diversity that looks like America: men and women, east coast and west, black and white, Hispanic and Anglo, and religious diversity that includes just about everyone. If Roemer thinks Dems should strive to have the Republicans’ version of a big tent, he’s just not paying attention.
Were Roemer running for governor of Indiana (which, by the way, may be a good idea), discussions over whether he’s too conservative would be far less contentious. Instead, he’s running for DNC chair — and he’s not doing it very well.