Reading this plea from NARAL to make choice the frontburner issue in the Roberts nomination, I can’t help but to be somewhat cynical and wonder if the organization is suffering somehow by the progressive movements slow but inevitable move away from single issue organizations to more movement based groups?
NARAL was idiotic to back Lincoln Chaffee, but it was symptomatic of the past mindset on the left to put one’s issue above the needs of the entire movement. They also do themselves a disservice: a Republican majority in the Senate does not do anything to protect a woman’s right to choose. A pro-life Democrat is going to vote for a Democratic majority leader, and the Democratic leadership has enshrined choice in the party’s platform (”Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right.”) — and it isn’t going anywhere soon. For all the naysaying I’ve done about progressive blogging (and I’ve got lots more to do), the one upside I see is that most of us are interested in a Democratic majority at the end of the rainbow. On the right their single issue organizations have learned to hold their tongues when it benefits the movements long term goals, and on the left I think the money is moving in that more generalist direction – leading to NARAL’s dillema. For a pro-choice woman, the ideal outcome is a Democratic majority that will protect her rights – who should she donate to? NARAL, who will funnel money to Republican candidates, or the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, Democracy for America, Progressive Majority, Campaign for America’s Future, or Center for American Progress who are interested in creating a progressive/Democratic majority?
The choice is quite clear. Join the movement or be left behind.
Related
Crack In The Matrix
Who Are The Masters?
Team Bush: “Grab some black people”
You probably have a point about Linc Chaffee, but I would bet that if the Senate was split 50-50, he would pull a Jeffords.
On a percentage basis, how much has NARAL contributed to Republicans as compared to Democrats.
Though I tend to agree with your post in the big picture view, the reality is that NARAL is an organization dedicated to abortion rights, not electing Democrats. If they consider their best candidate in a race to be a Republican, so be it. The Democrats do not own NARAL’s vote, and if they can elect a pro-choice Senator that happens to be a Republican, for them, it is better than electing somebody that is not pro-choice.
Kos and NARAL: Right and Wrong
I’m not even sure where to start on this one. Pro-choice group NARAL exhorts pro-choicers to lobby the Big Dog Liberal Blogs (i.e., Kos, etc.) to focus on abortion issues:
With the Roberts nomination front and center, choice is being talked about mor…
I can’t understand why you won’t accept that NARAL is a bipartisan organization. It has Republican members. It has Republican donors. In my state, the interim director is a Republican.
What are they supposed to do? Kick these people out for the sake of ideological purity?
Joshua, from Chafee’s performance on the Bolton issue, do you really, really think he’d pull a Jeffords in a 50-50 split?
What Kos “forgets” is that NARAL supported and endorsed Kerry when Casey and Langevin would not…
Casey and Langevin belong to the most detrimental “single issues group” that is Democrats for Life… an organization that refused to endorse Kerry as the Democratic nominee.
So it is a bit ironic to be against an organization that is against a Democrats who refused to endorse the Democratic nominee….
For a pro-choice woman, the ideal outcome is a Democratic majority that will protect her rights
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/8/9/141338/3244/342#342
and for for perhaps the 20th time here I would like to point out to you that reality based evidence does not support this statement. Anti-choice Democrats do indeed vote to confirm judges like Janice Brown and, even worse ones like Leon Holmes.
Leon Holmes is a good example because, without the support of anti-choice Dems he would not have been confirmed. The vote, a little over a year ago, was 51-46. 5 Republicans voted against him, specifically Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Hutchinson# and Warner#.
Six Democrats voted for him Lincoln, Prior, Breaux, Landreiu, Miller and Ben Nelson. The fact of the matter is that anti-choice Democrats have no difficulty voting to confirm judges like Holmes. They have no problem voting for judges and legislation which would make the Catholic hierarchy proud.
#bolded because I wish to preempt any arguments about Sentors from very red states being just so helpless in the throes of their decision to vote for an overt misogynist
Kos is the only person with a problem and he is fighting a battle with himself because NARAL is not participating.
Remember this:
Abortion advocates stand by Kerry
Kerry says judges don’t have to agree with his stance
Thursday, May 20, 2004 Posted: 2:09 PM EDT (1809 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion-rights advocates are standing by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry despite his comments in an interview that he would be open to nominating anti-abortion judges.
…
Leaders of the abortion-rights movement said they will continue to support Kerry over President Bush, who supports abortion only in cases of rape or incest or when a woman’s life is endangered.
“There’s a huge difference between Bush and Kerry on choice and this is not going to undermine the pages-long documentation that Kerry is pro-choice,” said Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has endorsed Kerry, said, “I’d like to hear him use language that is stronger.”
____________
If Kos lit up any more straw men he’d start a forrest fire…
That’s what happens when rhetoric like the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party gets put into action. The more you place restrictions on who can be in your tent, the smaller your tent becomes.
I should probably clarify. By saying Zell Miller is in “that group”, I mean people who say they’re Democrats but are really Republicans in sheep’s clothing.
SaveFarris, how did that rhetoric shut people out? Most Democrats are angry at many of their congresscritters for appeasing the Republicans. Dean was saying that the Democratic party needs to stand for its stated ideals, which haven’t changed much in the past 20 years. I’m in no way as liberal as OW or Kos, but I still consider myself a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. I believe in all the major tenets of the Democratic platform.
Hell, I’m anti-abortion but pro-choice because I feel that if abortion were illegal, it would serve nothing but to force women to go underground for unsafe procedures.
The fact that people like Zell Miller are in that same group is what angers people like Dean, because Republicans snap up those people and parade them around as the “real Democrats” and portray the real Dems as somehow “out of the mainstream”. Yet Miller and others like him don’t realize that they are just tools of the Republicans. Republicans see Miller and say, “See! That’s what those commie Dummocraps should be!” I’ve always found it ironic that Miller speaks out against “vitriolic rhetoric” when he’s one of the biggest purveyors of it.
As for NARAL, I don’t really know much about it because I’m not real interested in abortion. If they succeed in making it the key issue in Roberts’ nomination, 75% of the country will yawn and not care anymore.
Drivel worthy of Markos – don’t think about your issues just vote Democratic and big daddy will take care of everything.
Lord knows I can’t imagine voting Republican, but the idea that Democrats can be trusted is insane.
Unless independent groups constantly keep their feet to the fire, Democratic politicans will sell them out in an instant.
The first thing you know, they will be passing Defense of Marriage acts and don’t ask don’t tell and welfare “reform” and voting for war in Iraq and censoring TV and the Internet and video games and bankruptcy bills and…
I know that sounds crazy and paranoid, but it’s just the way I feel.
“How dare you say I use vitriolic rhetoric! I challenge you to a duel!!!
Zell is probably suffering from a little dementia. I feel sad for him, really. Noone legitimate takes him seriously. Sort of like Ferris.
Part of Republican rhetoric is making people feel like Democrats don’t share their values. Most people want to feel like they are part of the club, and by belittling Democrats as “out of the mainstream”, they try to make it “uncool” to be a Democrat. That’s how you see poor people with no health benefits voting for Cons because the Democrats are:
1. Gonna’ take our guns!!!
2. Gonna’ force us to have abortions!!!
3. Gonna’ force us to not believe in God!!!!
4. Gonna’ force us to marry a same-sex partner!!!!
The real Republican agenda, the one that takes the tax burden off of high wealth individuals and business and places it on the poor, is a non-starter with the public.
pionar,
how is that any different than Democrats “snapping up” folks like Chaffee, Jeffords, Whitman, and McCain and parading them around as “Real Republicans” in order to portray the mainstream of the party as “extremists”?
My point was that people like those I mentioned above are welcome in the Republican party despite the differences because we have a “big tent”. Meanwhile, if any Democrat shows even an inkling of straying from liberal orthodoxy (Miller, Lieberman, Breaux), they are tarred and feathered as DINOs and, if not run out of the party, certainly shuttered off to the side all the while being constantly disparaged.
neoconsrloopy,
All I can say is that Strawmen are neat! I could just as easily say that the real Democratic agenda is to socialize the nation’s economy while driving religion out of society and surrendering to the UN and be just as accurate, if not moreso. But that certainly doesn’t help the public debate, does it?
SaveFarris,
Last I knew, none of those people, with the possible exception of Jeffords, ever accused their party of being extremists. Miller has (remember “I didn’t leave my party, my party left me”?).
Meanwhile, if any Democrat shows even an inkling of straying from liberal orthodoxy (Miller, Lieberman, Breaux), they are tarred and feathered as DINOs and, if not run out of the party, certainly shuttered off to the side all the while being constantly disparaged.
I happen to like Lieberman and Breaux. Miller is another thing. Also, I’ve heard many conservatives decry McCain for actually treating Democrats like they’re human, and Jeffords is certainly persona non grata with the Republicans.
Your argument that the GOP is a big tent party just doesn’t mesh with the facts. I’m not saying that Dems always get along (see DU types against the DLC), but it’s a much bigger tent than Republicans.
Pionar,
“but it s a much bigger tent than Republicans.”
Really? If I were a pro-war and pro-life Democrat I would be allowed to speak at the D convention? Be a likely nominee for a cabinet position with say Pres J Edwards? IMO, what is gradually happening is that all conservatives and rightie moderates are going R and all liberals and lefties moderates are going D. The difference may be that there are plenty more rightie moderates in power than leftie moderates. The R party is run by man reaching out to blacks and Hispanics; the D party by a shrill ideologue.
Breaux, Miller and a few Texas Blue Dogs were the last D moderates I can recall.
Dugger
which was coined first, “RINO” or “DINO”?
Both are certainly in wide use, so the claim that Republicans are a big tent is hilarious to me. But then again, I remember just shortly after the election how Arlen Specter was smacked around by the right for insufficiently toeing the party line, BTW. Maybe if I ignored all current history, it would sound more plausible to me.
If I were a pro-war and pro-life Democrat I would be allowed to speak at the D convention?
Yes, as long as you actually supported the Dem candidate. The R party is all about stopping blacks and hispanics from voting while giving lip service to diversity. Your list of moderate Dems seems to be missing Landrieu, Bayh, Edwards, and a whole host of others — but then I’m not surprised to find a post by you so factually challenged.
Whitman literally wrote the book: It’s My Party Too
Oh, and Oliver: Speaking as a constituent, Landrieu’s no moderate.
So not a single anti-abortion/pro-life Democrat would pledge to support the candidate. Not a one. Fascinating. Rudy and Arnie supported W. As did McCain. But all of those pro-life Democrats (assuming byond Casy they exist), not one would pledge to support the candidate. What scoundrels!
Dugger
Dugger, I knew you were referring to the Casey myth, that’s why I made that point explicitly. When the GOP picks someone who’s pro-choice as their candidate, you can talk to me about who’s tent is bigger.