« NetFlix: 1 | Main | America, America, God Shed His Grace on Thee »
May 20, 2005
With Friends Like These
In something of an odd move, NARAL has given Lincoln Chafee their early endorsement, and their first of the 2006 campaign. Stupid stupid stupid. They've been missing the forest throughout the race, driving Langevin, who could've unseated Chafee (and was stomping him in the polls), out of the running, and now offering Lincoln their preemptive stamp of approval. Assumedly, this is to prove their independence from the party. But you know what? NARAL isn't actually independent from the party because choice, in reality, isn't actually independent from the Democrats.
That's why Langevin couldn't have done much harm. A Democratic majority is going to protect the right to choose even if one or two of its members are uncomfortable with the concept. A Republican majority is going to work feverishly to abrogate it even if one or two of its members, like Lincoln, support choice. I see where NARAL's coming from on this, but by cutting pro-life Democrats off at the knees they're keeping some Republicans in power, by doing that, they're helping to sustain the Republican majority, and by doing that, they're striking a grievous blow against their cause.
May 20, 2005 in Politics of Choice | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83458031f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference With Friends Like These:
» Libs Who Don't Get It from Oliver Willis
NARAL endroses a Republican candidate for the Senate. Because if we have a Republican majority that's so helpful to a woman's right [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 4:13:57 PM
» What is NARAL Thinking? from The Supreme Irony of Life...
Rather than endorse a pro-life Democrat, who would be a minority in the Democratic party, NARAL endorses Republican Lincoln Chafee. [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 5:00:11 PM
» NARAL Screws Self Over, Stabs Dems in the Back from Burnt Orange Report
Well, it's not every day that you see Kos taking on a liberal activist group like NARAL, but he makes an excellent point in his post today. Earlier this year it appeared that Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin (D) would... [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 5:18:24 PM
» NARAL endorses a Republican from dadahead
Why didn't the Dems just run a pro-choicer in the first place? It's hard not to see this as just deserts. The Democratic Party simply should not be running anti-choice candidates. Maybe now they'll realize that. [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 5:18:51 PM
» NARAL Screws Self Over, Stabs Dems in the Back from Burnt Orange Report
Well, it's not every day that you see Kos taking on a liberal activist group like NARAL, but he makes an excellent point in his post today. Earlier this year it appeared that Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin (D) would... [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 5:51:52 PM
» Libs Who Don't Get It from Oliver Willis
NARAL endroses a Republican candidate for the Senate. Because if we have a Republican majority that's so helpful to a woman's right [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 7:38:23 PM
» Libs Who Don't Get It from Oliver Willis
NARAL endroses a Republican candidate for the Senate. Because if we have a Republican majority that's so helpful to a woman's right [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 7:39:04 PM
» Libs Who Don't Get It from Oliver Willis
NARAL endroses a Republican candidate for the Senate. Because if we have a Republican majority that's so helpful to a woman's right [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 7:42:49 PM
» Libs Who Don't Get It from Oliver Willis
NARAL endorses a Republican candidate for the Senate. Because if we have a Republican majority that's so helpful to a woman's right [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 7:43:33 PM
» NARAL's Blunder from Lawyers, Guns and Money
I'm 90% in agreement with Ezra about NARAL's awful decision to endorse Lincoln Chafee. My 10% of disagreement is that NARAL was quite right to oppose Langevin. [Read More]
Tracked on May 21, 2005 3:38:51 AM
» NARAL's Endorsement of Lincoln Chafee from Alas, a Blog
True, it’s in NARAL’s interest to have Democratic majority in the Senate. It’s also in NARAL’s interest for Bill Frist to suddenly become a pregnant single mother. Unfortunately, neither of these [Read More]
Tracked on May 30, 2005 8:55:36 AM
Comments
Bullet sacurely lodged in foot now.
Posted by: michael ryan | May 20, 2005 1:10:35 PM
If I were the DNC, I would use this as an opportunity to point out to the country that NARAL is not the Democratic Party, and that there are Republicans who are pro-choice, and Democrats who are pro-life.
Stating the obvious? Everybody knows this? Well, no, they don't.
Posted by: James E. Powell | May 20, 2005 1:16:28 PM
wondering if the timing doesn't relate somehow to the nuclear option (Chafee would be one of the crucial votes)
Posted by: ktheintz | May 20, 2005 1:35:08 PM
Thank you for the post. NARAL can go to hell. And Jim Langevin should get back in the race.
Posted by: Paleo | May 20, 2005 2:14:24 PM
Ezra -- I think you're 100% wrong on this one. NARAL isn't part of the DNC and shouldn't be treated as such. People donate to NARAL to protect abortion rights. If Democrats want their support, they need to show their own support for abortion rights. If you disagree with NARAL, send your own money elsewhere or start an organization specifically to elect pro-choice Democrats, like the Emily's List folks did.
But don't demand that people who believe in something suck it up for the party all the time.
David Sirota and Kos, etc., were right to drag out Hoyer on the bankruptcy bill, even though Dems are generally better than the GOP. Generally isn't enough. Individual politicians need accountability.
Posted by: Matt Singer | May 20, 2005 3:15:02 PM
I have placed a call to NARAl asking for an explanation: (202) 973-3000
Posted by: filchyboy | May 20, 2005 3:23:17 PM
And I think you're wrong. It's not that NARAL shouldn't be independent, it's that they shouldn't be morons. I'm not angry at them for crossing the party, I'm angry because their actions, in sum, hurt choice. NARAL's being myopic. Take down Chafee and the Senate becomes more Democratic, maybe even a Democratic majority depending on other elections. That'll protect choice. Keep him in and the Republicans retain a seat and, no matter what Chafee thinks personally, his party will continue their assault on choice. NARAL is being flat stupid here. Not disloyal, stupid.
Posted by: Ezra | May 20, 2005 3:25:00 PM
National NARAL recently announced that Chafee would be speaking at their annual convention, the focus of which is Supreme Court appointments and stopping judicial rollback of abortion rights. Put two and two together, Ezra. NARAL wants to hold the court. They'll need some GOP votes to do that in this Congress. They can't necessarily wait for the next one.
Posted by: Matt Singer | May 20, 2005 3:41:19 PM
Maybe they've struck a deal. But chafee, unfortunately, doesn't have the power to hold the line. He just doesn't. So I'm not impressed with their strategizing here -- the only Supreme who's going to come up before 2006 is Rehnquist and he's going to be replaced by a conservative. If NARAL thinks that buying Chafee off -- which may or may not mean anything in the end anyway -- will net them a soft on choice nominee, they're simply naive.
Posted by: Ezra | May 20, 2005 3:45:46 PM
I'm sure it's not the only part of their strategy. I'm not sure what all of the pieces are. I know that the people I know in the abortion rights movement tend to be very smart strategic thinkers.
Posted by: Matt Singer | May 20, 2005 3:48:46 PM
Seems to me that if they're really strategizing to get Chafee's vote on the next Supreme Court justice, they'd have been much smarter not to simply give over their endorsement this early, but rather to wait to see if he actually does what they'd like to see done. Given the extreme unlikelihood that Chafee would ever have the testicular fortitude to buck his President on a Supreme Court pick (and I say this based on his craven weaseling re the Bolton nom), I'd want to see the mule do a little work before giving him the carrot.
Posted by: Glenn | May 20, 2005 4:05:56 PM
It's actually normal for issue groups to endorse incumbents. Generally, if it's between an incumbent with a favorable voting record and a challenger without a voting record, the issue group endorses the incumbent. It's a pretty clear pattern, and if I were running a group like NARAL I would follow the same protocol.
Posted by: Gabe | May 20, 2005 4:20:21 PM
A Republican majority does nothing to help a woman's right to choose. Nothing. NARAL has just helped the anti-choice lobby.
Posted by: Oliver | May 20, 2005 4:22:30 PM
I dunno, a GOP'er being endorsed by Satanic baby-killers in this political atmosphere? Perhaps it could be a reason for movement conservatives, who would be disgusted with Chafee to stay home.
Posted by: sabbadoo32 | May 20, 2005 4:43:39 PM
Oh, Ezra. NARAL is perfectly within the scope of what they do to endorse Chafee, something that I'm sure is backed up by their own research into his record on choice. Even though in practice choice groups generally support Democrats, it's far from unheard of for them to endorse Republicans. Moreover, to become an explicitly partisan organization will hurt their fundraising capability, because there are a lot of pro-choice women who are also Republicans.
Also, if Langevin didn't have the stones to run in the face of big, bad NARAL, he's not the candidate you and many others consider him to be.
Posted by: JerseyExport | May 20, 2005 4:57:50 PM
Maybe it was a shot across the bow. After all, the Dems have pretty officially screwed NARAL royally by anointing Bob Casey, Jr and telling pro-choice Pensylvanians to stuff it.
I can't blame them
Posted by: Patrick ONeill | May 20, 2005 4:59:02 PM
Do I understand you correctly, Ezra?
You're saying NARAL would be better off supporting a Dem who describes himself as pro-life than supporting a Republican who favors choice?
That's expecting a bit much from an issue advocacy group, don't you think?
Posted by: Quaker in a Basement | May 20, 2005 5:03:10 PM
Maybe it was a shot across the bow. After all, the Dems have pretty officially screwed NARAL royally by anointing Bob Casey, Jr and telling pro-choice Pensylvanians to stuff it.
First, the poster above is correct in that one-issue organizations tend to favor incumbents over challengers, even if they have the same stance on the issue. Also, while it would be understandable if NARAL endorsed Chafee had he been running against Langevin, I don't understand the hostility to Bob Casey, Jr. It is not as though his election would force voters to trade a pro-life Democrat for a pro-choice Republican. Both are pro-life, but only one (Casey) serves the interests of pro-choice voters.
Posted by: Constantine | May 20, 2005 5:12:05 PM
Or, NARAL could have made no endorsement and pour the money into more winnable Democratic senate races and helped to create a Democratic majority in which we'd respect a woman's right to choose.
Which is, last I checked, NARAL's reason for being.
Posted by: Oliver | May 20, 2005 5:16:32 PM
Something that did not occur to me right away, and may be nothing, but . . .
Won't NARAL's endorsement of Chafee effectively blunt any impact of the Christo-Fascists on this race? Going head-to-head with a Republican who does not have the Christo-Fascists working for him, in a blue state, where the Cult of Bush is weak, should be a fairly easy race for a Democrat to win, no?
Does Chafee have sufficient personal popularity to win a straight Democrat v. Republican race?
Are there issues that are more important to Rhode Islanders than abortion rights? I am guessing that there are. How does Chafee line up on those?
What influence does NARAL actually have on election outcomes? Have they taken out any incumbents lately? I can't remember the last candidate who lost a general election because he was pro-life.
Posted by: James E. Powell | May 20, 2005 5:18:53 PM
I think this was, more than anything else, a vote of no confidence by NARAL on the Democrats' chances to make gains in the Senate. It only makes sense to endorse Chafee if the GOP looks like its going to return a majority of the size it has now. If the Democrats were to become the majority, anti-abortion stuff wouldn't move anyways.
It's an understandable decision, but a shortsighted one. That they're mad about Casey shows that maybe their judgement in candidate selection isn't so hot.
Posted by: SamAm | May 20, 2005 5:33:37 PM
Ezra:
Are you me and Oliver the only people that get this?
Chafee has no impact in the GOP. He is pro-choice, great. So are the Dems who are challenging him.
How could retaining a GOP majority be good for the pro-choice movement.
Matt Singer hypothesizes some secret deal. I ask - with Chafee? What can he deliver? Nothing but another GOP Senate leader.
This is pretty simple Matt, NARAL just made an absolutely idiotic move.
If saying so means declaring war, then so be it.
Posted by: Armando | May 20, 2005 7:15:35 PM
NARAL is absolutely right to do this. It's not their job to ensure a dem majority -- that's the democratic party's job. NARAL's job is to support pro-choice candidates, and like any other issue advocacy organization, all things being equal they will support the incumbent since they win most of the time and they need access to senior leaders. You think NARAL should throw a long time, reliable supporter on their issues over the side and just take it on faith that the dems will win a majority? Now that would be stupid.
The early nod is a well deserved bitch slap to the democratic party who seems all too willing to field and support anti-choice candidates. The party has no right to expect loyalty from NARAL when it gets none from the party.
So, to sum it up, Ezra, Armando, and Oliver may be the few who DON'T get it. Seems pretty damn simple to me.
Posted by: LTRS | May 21, 2005 5:20:51 AM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 12:15:43 PM
Angel Tattoos
Bullseye Tattoo
Butterfly Tattoos
Celebrity Tattoo
Celtic Tattoo
Chinese Tattoo
Cross Tattoos
Dragon Tattoo
Fairy Tattoos
Flower Tattoo
Heart Tattoo
Henna Tattoo
Lower Back Tattoos
Miami Ink Tattoo
Religious Tattoo
Rose Tattoos
Skull Tattoos
Star Tattoos
Sun Tattoo
Tattoo Art
Tattoo Flash
Tattoo and Piercing
Tattoo Design
Tattoo Graphic
Tattoo Idea
Tattoo Removal
Tattoos
Tattoos of Scorpions
Temporary Tattoo
Tribal Tattoo
Emo Hair Style
Bang Hair Style
Sedu Hair Style
Prom Hair Style
Short Hair Style
Black Hair Style
How to do Hairstyles
Long Hair Style
Man Hair Style
Hair Style Cut
New Hair style
Formal Hair Style
Medium Hairstyle
Curly Hair Style
African American Hair Style
Hair Style Updo
Hair Style Magazine
Braid Hair Style
Teen Hair Style
Bridal Hair Style
Punk Hair Style
Kid Hair Style
Jessica Simpson Hair Style
Layered Hair Style
Layered Hairstyles
Color Hair Style
Cruise
Cruises
Royal Caribbean Cruise
France Cruise
Panama Cruise
Asia Cruises
Luxury Cruises
Alaskan Cruise
Caribbean Cruise
Princess Cruise
Baltimore Cruise
Boston Cruises
Cruises to Hawaii
Crystal Cruises
Carnival Cruises
Cheap Cruises
Norwegian Cruises
Cruise Discount
Disney Cruises
Best Price on Cruises
Cruise Critics
Mediterranean Cruises
Cruise Wedding
Celebrity Cruise
Singles Cruises
Bermuda Cruise
Posted by: Peter | Sep 20, 2007 1:42:52 PM



