I like Dean's response to Question 2. We can disagree with Frost and Roemer, but we need to remember that this is a big tent party and give conservative Dems flexibility on any issue except Social Security.
I'm not surprised Roemer had the strongest response to the question about winning back faith based voters. I posted a diary here and at dkos yesterday in an attempt to stimulate some discussion about Jim Wallis' book God's Politics. I got one positive comment here and zero comments at dkos. Dems are still uncomfortable discussing issues and values from a religious frame.
He was saying yes, oppose a Clarence Thomas, but when it comes to Condi Rice, opposing her would be seen by most voters as the Dems being against a strong Black woman, so we have to pick our battles (i.e., back off her).
I am really confident that I understood him correctly. While I don't think what he said was offensive, I think it wrong. As Al Sharpton said, "Condoleeza Rice is my color, but Barbara Boxer is my kind."
In my opinion we need to stand up consistently for what is right. Yes, you have to pick which battles you will go to the mat for (i.e., filibuster), and for non-lifetime cabinet appointments you shouldn't do so. But you can sure VOTE against a bad nominee. At first we'll take all kinds of flak, but after everyone gets used to the Dems having some backbone it will gain us respect. The absolute WORST strategy is to wait to suddenly put up a fight until there's an election contest. Then it seems like a cheap campaign tactic and lacks the appearance of conviction.
I really hope they stand together against Gonzales.
On Roemer and the big tent: He drew a very negative reaction from the audience by referring to "special interest groups" hijacking the Party on the choice issue. This is very offensive, and a real distortion. We (women, and pro-choice folks both) are the majority in this country. But even if we weren't, that wouldn't make us a "special interest group."
There's a big difference between trying to talk about issues of faith in a constructive way and buying into the right-wing's version of faith-based moral values. This is a big topic, but I don't think Roemer gets it at all.
His first answer to the question was "Yes, he would speak out against a candidate that only a minority of Congressional Dems opposed, if he felt strongly opposed to that candidate as well." And as a side note he did not care for Condileeza Rice.
We must remember the Chair won't have a vote on this issue, but he will often be the person explaining Dem positions to the press. And what I think is important in this particular instance is how the Chair would vote on Condi, but how he would handle dissent and difference within the party?
There is a lot of arguement and debate going on how the Dems work as an effective opposition party and not get painted an sore loser obstructionists by the RWNM (right wing noise machine).
The Chair I think needs to help Congressional Dems find their spine and can do that by supporting those who chose to take a stand and encouraging others behind the scenes to to the same. But in no way do I want the Chair castigating the leaders in public.
