Quote Sparks Effort To Oust Party Leader

Not that I am interested in rushing to the defense of Demorcratic Party leaders, but read this and tell me whether or not he is getting shaken down unfairly:

Barbara Lett Simmons, the party’s national committeewoman and a longtime Neverson detractor, said she is appalled that the head of the [D.C.] city’s Democratic Party was quoted in the Washington City Paper as saying he would have voted for the three-fifths compromise, in which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation and apportionment purposes when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

“He has expressed a philosophical position contrary to the Democratic Party,” Simmons said. “This is 2003. I don’t think we can afford in this upcoming year of trying to reclaim the White House and Congress to have 17th-century-mentality leadership.”

Simmons, who has been critical of Neverson since he took over the party three years ago, said Neverson has every right “to think, feel and believe exactly what he expressed.” But she said he “can’t be my leader, and he can’t appropriately represent this Democratic body.”

Neverson said he made the comments in an extensive article about his personal life and his political leadership. The article quotes Neverson as saying he would have supported the constitutional clause decreeing that each slave be counted as three-fifths a person because “to produce a republic you have to make sacrifices.”

“If it offended anyone, I apologize,” Neverson said. “It wasn’t meant to say that Norm Neverson supports the three-fifths compromise. It was taken completely out of context. When you don’t have all the facts and you don’t have all the information, ignorance rules supreme. Get the information.”

Neverson, 58, said that he has heard snippets about a resolution being presented against him but that it is not on the Democratic State Committee’s agenda for Thursday’s meeting. He said people would understand what he was saying if he were given the opportunity to explain it in its historical context. He said he understands the reactions of some members of the Democratic State Committee.

Now it seems to me that this guy was making a comment on the Founding Fathers’ rationale behind voting for the Three-Fifths Compromise. Granted I don’t agree either, but let’s take it from the prospective of abortion. If the stability and outright survival of the United States depended on a compromise between left-wing and right-wing organizations in America on abortion, would the D.C. Democratic Committee vote overwhelmingly in favor of a pro-life position? Nonsense!

For a party that has always asserted that compromise and toleration are the hallmarks of so-called “democracy,” they sure are quick to slam their own. Of course, this doesn’t seem like this is a case of giving Neverson the benefit of the doubt. Someone has an axe to grind and they are going to pursue whatever course of action they choose.