This is impressive, because it is all about the state of the Democratic Party. The political unpopularity of the platform as it came out of committee has appeared to be a bit of scandal in the news, but I thought that was simply because I read more right-leaning news sources than left-leaning. Then this morning I did see something about historic fact-facing of the party, that it could finally run a candidate without mentioning the “G” word as well as not mentioning Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
Listen, as an amendment is rammed through by Ted Strickland, no doubt with the support of the Obama campaign who had to be in a panic. The platform as it had been was not a problem at the convention; you can hear the way the vote goes. Those who know had to be aware that while those omissions might be correct for the party, they would be a big problem in the election. How would they keep the Jews, the Catholics, the evangelicals? How would they appeal to middle America?
I hope this gets wide play. It is almost fun and I can’t decide if I should be upset or delighted. I think I’ll be delighted for awhile.
Update: In the comments, I responded to djf with “now I predict there will be a story in the New Yorker or the NYT about how the president prevailed in this battle, pressing Ted Strickland to overrule his committee in this procedural way. I’ll be he did, too, but principle had nothing to do with it. He can be the hero in that narrative, standing against extremists in his party. Maybe Michelle turned up in tears? Or there were courageous phone calls made. Wanna bet?”
I am so out of date. There is a story just like that, but it is on Politico.
September 5th, 2012 | 6:33 pm
Kate, you ask, “how would they (the Dems) keep the Jews” without reversing the changes in the platform. Maybe you don’t know many American Jews, but Obama would not have had the slightest problem keeping a solid majority of the Jewish vote (at least 60%, probably considerably more) even if he decided to stick with the changes in the platform. Most Jewish voters are too deeply committed to the Democratic Party and its policy positions even to contemplate voting for a Republican. As far as they are concerned, Republicans have horns. The reversal of the platform changes was intended, I suspect, to avoid embarrassing the Jewish organizations – including rabbinical organizations and religious institutions (other than the Orthodox, of course) – that all but openly support Obama and have gone far out on a limb in claiming (for the benefit of elderly admirers of Golda Meir; younger Jews don’t much care) that he’s a “true friend” of Israel. Of course, they know damn well he’s no such thing; what they’re really concerned about is (surprise, surprise) “choice” (yes, you know what I mean) and “social justice” (e.g., Obamacare).
As for the Catholic and Evangelical vote: I am neither, but I very much doubt that any Catholic or Evangelical voter otherwise inclined to vote for Obama would be dissuaded by the omission of a reference to God in the party platform.
September 5th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Surely, to be a Democrat is, for a Christian, a ‘near occasion of sin.’
September 5th, 2012 | 7:30 pm
I do know Catholics who would sit out an election if there is no room for God or a pro-life position in the Democratic Party. I also know some Catholics who won’t care at all and I don’t know why they bother with their religion.
Jews, I take your point, but think some will be swayed.
EXCEPT, now I predict there will be a story in the New Yorker or the NYT about how the president prevailed in this battle, pressing Ted Strickland to overrule his committee in this procedural way. I’ll be he did, too, but principle had nothing to do with it. He can be the hero in that narrative, standing against extremists in his party. Maybe Michelle turned up in tears? Or there were courageous phone calls made.
Wanna bet?
September 5th, 2012 | 8:41 pm
“I do know Catholics who would sit out an election if there is no room for God or a pro-life position in the Democratic Party.”
There has not been room for a pro-life position – even a (meaningful) moderate, anti-late-term abortion position – in the Democratic Party for more than a decade. Yes, I know, Democrats in Congress from conservative states or districts sometimes grudgingly vote for pro-life measures, but this has only been for show, on measures bound to lose or that the Republicans would have pushed through with or without their votes. As far as I know, no Democratic Senator voted against any of the last four Democratic Supreme Court nominees, all of whom are pro-abortion in the extreme, as is the current Democratic president – something that was known about him from his record as an Illinois legislator, before he ever ran for president. So I’m sort of baffled how any halfway informed pro-life person could still be considering voting for Obama, regardless of the presence of meaningless references to God in the party platform.
September 5th, 2012 | 8:55 pm
Certainly, that’s true, but I know people who are passionate Democrats, pro-life and/or Catholics, and just hope the party will come around someday. it’s baffling, I agree.
September 5th, 2012 | 9:34 pm
Kate, as to your vindicated prediction – perhaps this was the plan all along? ;-)
September 6th, 2012 | 5:38 am
I don’t know. Watching Villaraigosa’s face, he looks disconcerted. Maybe the extremists of the party knew what was coming and stayed in the hall — it’s not full — to push for what seemed good and right to them. Maybe there is a fuller story coming out later this week. Won’t that be fun?
September 6th, 2012 | 10:43 pm
Let’s face it, to be a card carrying Democrat and Obama supporter requries a diseased, perverse soul or some sort of mental illness.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact