What NARAL Should Have Done Before

8:08 pm EST August 17th, 2005 | Democrats | 7 Comments

NARAL has decided not to endorse anyone in the Virginia Governor’s race, because they don’t think Tim Kaine supports choice as strongly as they would like him to. This is the right thing for them to do. If the Democrat in a race is up to snuff for them, then they should put in money and give an endorsement – if not, then stick out of it. What they did in Rhode Island was choose to support Chaffee when all Chaffee’s going to do is help an anti-choice Republican majority.

Some folks have misconstrued my derision of NARAL my insinuating that I think they should give up their core beliefs. Not at all. What I do believe is that NARAL does not gain anything for its cause or its supporters when it supports the Republican party, no matter how much they feel the specific candidate can help them.

We have a two party system. One of the two parties has choice in its platform. One of the two parties has a clear streak of pro-choice presidential candidates (even conservative Joe Lieberman supports NARAL). It is in the best interest of NARAL and the larger issue of choice to support that party and its candidates if they actually give a damn about their issue.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

7 Responses to “What NARAL Should Have Done Before”

  1. Joseph Hughes says:
    August 17, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    I see your point and agree with it now, Oliver. Just want you to know that I’m in your tent all the way. I think we both want NARAL to maintain its core beliefs. And I also think we both want them to make the best decisions for the efficacy of their platform. And you and I both know that it’s with the Democratic party. This move by them is a good one. I’m starting to think that stepping out of the normal party endorsements is one of those “looks good on paper to supporters” moves that is best left on paper.

  2. JD says:
    August 18, 2005 at 1:08 am

    If that is the case, they should rename their organization to indicate that they are the NARAL for Democratic Candidates only. The fact is, that they do not get to select the candidates from the parties, and if it so happens that the Republican candidate is better for their organization’s objectives, why should they not support that candidate?

  3. Oliver says:
    August 18, 2005 at 8:08 am

    Because – for the ten thousandth time – unless the GOP decides to support the right of a woman to choose, a Republican majority will be anti-choice.

  4. PSU94 says:
    August 18, 2005 at 8:08 am

    I could probably just go to NARAL’s website and find this out myself, but I don’t feel like it. Are they gonna be sitting out the PA Senate race because Casey is pro-life?

  5. Media In Trouble says:
    August 18, 2005 at 10:08 am

    I call Bullshit again on you Oliver.

    Single issue groups need to battle for their issue, and by not falling in lockstep with the party that can’t fall in lockstep with itself is apparently part of being a Democrat.

    Dont forget there were Democrats that voted for the partial birth abortion ban, just as there are Democrats responsible for other votes that are contrarian to the Democratic platform.

    It is the same reason Labor is breaking up. Read some Ralph Nader and you will learn a bit why single issue groups don’t often fall in line with either party.

    The reason is simple, if your group is for abortion rights and a Democrat doesn’t support your group why in tarnation should you support that Democrat?

    I can see if the party was more like the republicans where where a decision is made as a party to vote in lockstep with each other and there are no strayers. So that even pro-choicers vote against choice sometimes. But that simply is not the case with Democrats.

    If Democrats want NARAL’s unconditional suport they should start earnign it a bit more and stop voting for abortion bans of any kind.

    Its a privacy issue dammit.

    Oliver get out of this mindset you are starting to sound like a DLCer

  6. neoconsrloopy says:
    August 18, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    He didn’t say that NARAL should support that Democrat, he said that they shouldn’t support the Republican.

    Electing pro-choice Republicans, for now, means that they are supporting Republican leaders and a Republican majority who are anti-choice. Any action which supports choice will not get a hearing with anti-choice
    Republican party leadership.

    Until Republican party leaders abandon their anti-abortion plank, it doesn’t make sense to support any of them. Pro-choice Lincoln Chafee is going to support John Roberts, no matter how anti-choice he may be.

  7. JD says:
    August 18, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    It is almost as though some on the left view their special interest groups as their property.