an OPEN CHALLENGE to the DNC and Simon Rosenberg

[welshTerrier2]

Many Democrats understand that this is a critically important time for the Democratic Party. The Party is at a crossroads. During the recent election, our Party went to the polls unified. The "cause celebre", however, was not a "unity of thought" allied behind the vision embodied in the Party's platform or even its nominee. The "cause celebre" was ABB, i.e. anybody but bush ... ABB is not a theme that will hold us together going forward. There must be agreement on the values and policy objectives we stand for and there also must be agreement on how the Party conducts its internal business. Absent progress in both of these domains, we are likely to see a harmful splintering between the grassroots and Party insiders.

All this leads to a discussion of the DNC Chairman selection process.

One of the candidates, Mr. Simon Rosenberg, recently made the following statement regarding Iraq policy: "The war was a good idea". While Mr. Rosenberg is entitled to his opinion, that opinion does not necessarily represent the views of many other Democrats. There have been substantial discussions about whether policy considerations should or should not be a criterion in the selection process. Insiders generally seem to believe that the Chairman's role is primarily one of "blocking and tackling" and that the job requirements focus almost exclusively on fundraising and Party infrastructure issues. That view, however, is not shared by many in the Party's grassroots. The grassroots are viewing the selection of the next DNC Chairman in a much more symbolic way. What signal will it send about the direction of the Party if the new Chairman has advocated a specific policy position the grassroots strongly opposes?

So, we have a conflict in need of resolution. One view is that policy considerations are insignificant for the DNC Chairman selection process and the other view is that policy considerations are critically important. To make the wrong choice at this time could be very damaging. Trial balloons have been floated suggesting that both Dr. Dean and Mr. Rosenberg might "share the chair". But this doesn't lend much comfort. Seeking a "have your cake and eat it too" solution is the right way to go; but the shared Chair approach is not the right implementation. The argument here is not that there is anything inherently wrong with dividing the responsibilities of the job but rather that one of those being considered has issued a policy statement that may be unacceptable to many in the Party.

What is needed is a pledge by the DNC, with Mr. Rosenberg's agreement, to open up the platform process so that every Democrat, every single Democrat, can participate directly in the definition of key platform planks. I am issuing this OPEN CHALLENGE to the DNC and Simon Rosenberg to give every Democrat a direct vote via referendum specifically on the Iraq plank in the Party's platform. I am also asking that the same process be subsequently used for all other major platform issues in the future.

If non-Insider Democrats are to have faith in the Party and accept the premise that Mr. Rosenberg's statement on the war should not to be weighed in the selection process, we need assurance that his support from the DNC as either Chairman or Executive Director is not a sign that the Party is entrenched in its Iraq position. Verbal assurances that all policies are always open for re-evaluation would be inadequate. The only credible form of assurance is a party-wide binding referendum on the issue.

Let's put the small "d" back in the Democratic Party and let every Democrat have a say.