Dem
47
GOP
53
Of all the critical things that have been said about the Democratic Party, the barb that may have penetrated most deeply, and maye have had the most longevity, came from inside the blue tent. We speak, of course, of the famous line from Will Rogers, who decreed: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
This week, the Party is helping folks to understand where that reputation might have come from. DNC Ken Martin said, many months ago, that he would release the autopsy that the Party commissioned after the 2024 elections. Then, providing everyone with a wonderful object lesson in the Streisand Effect, Martin said that the autopsy would not be released, after all. And then this week, having figured out that the subject was NOT going away, he had the report released, after all. Well, a version of the report, anyhow.
It's a very... odd document, as you can see for yourself if you click through. On releasing the document, Martin immediately disowned it, and said it represents the views of its author, Democratic operative Paul Rivera, and not the Party. Every single page has this header, in red type:
Disclaimer: This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC. The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.
In addition to the red-type header, there are comments inserted into the document, the sort that an editor would put into a draft that was far from being complete. Seems to us that if Rivera did a poor job, or if he didn't properly finish the job, then... that's still on the DNC, right? They're the ones who gave him the assignment.
Broadly speaking, it's pretty obvious stuff. Although the document checks in at around 200 pages, we probably could have knocked it out in a weekend, since it's pretty much all stuff we could have written off the top of our heads (in fact, the word count is around 55,000, which is a total we've been known to exceed in a week, if it's a particularly news-heavy week). For example, the report observes that Republicans are better at spreading misinformation, and that Kamala Harris should have done more to counter accusations that she is radically pro-trans. Gee, those are some keen insights there.
That said, as with the Epstein Files, the real story is what is NOT in the report. Although it's pretty critical of Harris, it largely handles Joe Biden with kid gloves, and does not say that, just maybe, Biden should not have tried to run for reelection. More obviously, and more glaringly, the report does not contain the words "Gaza," "Palestine" or "Israel."
We understand well that the Israel issue is a difficult one for the Democratic Party, as it divides them badly, while largely unifying the Republicans. Still, it is possible to say that without taking sides. In fact, we just did it. And since that issue was clearly a key part of Harris' loss, it makes the whole report look either incompetent or, more likely, dishonest. That is to say, for months the whispers have been that Israel/Palestine was the specific reason that the DNC sat on the report. And for that subject to be completely absent suggests pretty strongly that the report was edited or otherwise doctored before it was released.
So, it would appear that Martin has once again made the situation worse, not better. We don't think we've ever been less impressed with a major-party chair. Even Ronna Romney McDaniel was just overly obeisant, not incompetent. At this point, the blue team is going to have to hope that things like $1,776,000,000.00 slush funds serve to drown out this story. (Z)