Centerfield

From the Burnt Orange Report:

As a Democrat, I am angered and as someone who is pro-life I am appalled. Jim Langevin would be a phenomenal Senator, as his record in the House attests to, and would join Bob Casey (assuming he beats Santorum) as a new and exciting pro-life leader in our caucus.

Well, there you have it. Andrew Dobbs is pro-life, so it's NO WONDER why he would be rooting for the pro-life candidate over a potential pro-choice candidate. But to become angered over NARAL supporting a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidates . . . What does he expect NARAL to do--back the pro-life candidate? Wouldn't that be a complete and utter rejection of all the things that NARAL stands for? The purpose of NARAL is not to act as a partisan wing of the Democratic Party. It's purpose is to promote the pro-choice cause. Shouldn't NARAL be applauded for supporting a politician based upon PRINCIPAL rather than PARTY AFFILIATION?

Chaffee is indeed pro-choice, one of the country's last prominent liberal Republicans, but he is a Republican no less. The first vote he cast this year was for Bill "James Dobson is My Homeboy" Frist as Senate Majority Leader. Langevin's first vote was for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

In my honest opinion, this is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Isn't the purpose of voting for a particular candidate to express our political view? If a Democrat runs on a pro-life platform, and he wins because millions of pro-choice Democrats vote for him just because he's a Democrat, he's going to walk away from the election thinking that you've endorsed his pro-life views.

It should go without saying that a pro-choice Republican is far more valuable to the pro-choice cause than a pro-life Democrat. Yet it may even be the case (in the long run), that a pro-choice Republican is more valuable to the Democrats than a pro-life Democrat, since the former allows for bipartisanship support on social issues in which pro-choice Republicans tend to agree with the Dems. And let's not forget what happened with a certain pro-life Democrat who gained fame and notoriety during the 2004 election campaign. He ending up endorsing George W. Bush for re-election and went on to deliver one of the most hate-filled speeches that I have ever heard delivered by a United States politician.

Again, I can understand why pro-life Dems would be thrilled over the prospect of Langevin's candidacy, but directing their ire at NARAL in this particular situation hardly seems to be the way to go. You wouldn't expect the NRA to back a Republican who is adamantly opposed to gun rights, so why would you expect a pro-choice organization to back a Democrat who is adamantly opposed to abortion rights?

"You wouldn't expect the NRA to back a Republican who is adamantly opposed to gun rights, so why would you expect a pro-choice organization to back a Democrat who is adamantly opposed to abortion rights?"

Bingo! I would make zero sense for NARAL to back a candidate who is opposed to abortion. The most that Mr. Dobbs could reasonably expect would be that NARAL would not endorse either candidate. By chastising them for doing the reasonable, Mr Dobbs reveals himself to be unreasonable.

Don't misunderstand me here, though. I'm not dissing BOR or even Dobbs. Heck, Jim Dallas, one of the co-founders of BOR, is an old friend of Carla's and a relatively old acquaintance of mine. I just don't think Mr. Dobbs is being reasonable in his criticism of NARAL.

Darn. Nic beat me to the obvious NRA example. NRA endorses Democrats all the time.

Special interest groups that are really SIGS (and not front groups for other agendas) by definition do not take the "Big Picture" view of partisan support. If they did, they'd no longer be SIGS. They'd be front groups for the parties.

It is traditional for single issue groups to support individuals, not parties. But I wonder if abortion politics is reaching a point where supporting the candidate, not the party, makes sense. I think the Republicans do seriously aspire to do away with Roe. vs. Wade by altering the composition of the Supreme Court

But I wonder if abortion politics is reaching a point where supporting the candidate, not the party, makes sense.

At which point, Rick, the group becomes a de facto front group representing the party and not their own issue constituents. If the NRA were to support an anti-gun-rights candidate because they were a Republican, while opposing a pro-gun-rights candidate who was a Democrat, there would be a predictable sharp drop in membership and support from both pro-gun-rights Democrats AND pro-gun-rights Republicans. How could you trust them any longer? WHY would you trust them? They betrayed you.

A pro-choice group that supports a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate is blatantly betraying its supporters. "Big Picture" reasoning won't help sell the sell-out--because "Big Picture" reasoning in itself imples that partisanship is the REAL issue, and that there is no sincerity at all in the issue advocacy. That as a consitituent you are meaninglessly subservient to other issues and agendas.

No matter how appealing the reasoning may seem, it's a perfect way to shrink your issue constituent base radically to nothing but partisans, by losing all credibility. And then you don't have that portion of the base anymore.

I think NARAL made a mistake here as well. While Chaffeee is pro-choice he is also a republican and as we've seen with the GOP the past decade marching in lock-step is the rule, not the exception. Therefore one can see where a democratic pro-birth candidate might be preferable to a pro-choice Republican. A pro-birth democrat would help give senate democrats the voting clout they need to influence judidical selection away from the right and more towards the center. Replacing a republican such as Chafee who will probably fold into the Republican corner of the approval process would be a gain for NARAL's goals since most judges chosen by Bush are conservative and activst enough to restrict abortion rights as both Owens and Brown(American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren) have doen or tried to do.(BTW one wonders with 6 judges considered better on the CA supreme court why wasn't one of them chosen instead of Brown?!?!) Would this irk the few NARAL mambers that are republican? Probably not. They too are looking at the Owens and Brown nominations with alarm. I'll point out that some moderate republican women voted for Kerry in the last election because of this very issue.

IF Chaffee sides with the Democrats and helps to stop the nominations of Brown and Owen then NARAL is proven right. If Chaffee follows the Frist program then NARAL has egg on their face and will have to support even a pro-birth Democratic candidate to replace Chaffee.

BTW Tully, most constituents of NARAL are smart enough to know that the big picture is indeed important, as is demonstrated by the GOP attempting to ramrod through anti-choice judges by literally destroying the filibuster process.
Heck this coming week is all about the big picture.

... most constituents of NARAL are smart enough to know that the big picture is indeed important...

Marcus, are you implicitly claiming that NARAL would NOT lose supporters and financing if it endorsed a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate?

Or are you just dismissing this in the name of the big picture fight that YOU think is important?

Suppose NARAL supports the pro-life candidate. Then suppose I'm the pro-choice GOP guy, and I decide to join forces with some "non-partisan" advocacy group "genuinely devoted to pro-choice positions," and I send letters to NARAL members telling them that NARAL is selling out as shills for the Democrats. Do you honestly think people for whom legal abortion is a #1 issue will be comfortable with sketchy big picture reasoning that CLAIMS the pro-life guy is a better choice, or will these people think "this smells like partisan politics to me, not pro-choice advocacy."

Single issue advocacy groups have one hard and fast rule they know is true: you stick to the script...

NARAL knows what its issue is, Marcus. And they know what would happen if they betrayed their constituents for the greater glory of the DNC. If I were opposed to their position, I would be urging them to do so.

The obvious: those upset with NARAL appear to be rabid Dems who believe NARAL and the pro-choice position are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, and should thus throw themselves on electoral grenades for the Greater Good of same.

Short-sighted, to say the least. I'm sure NARAL is even now exercising its own version of the line John Stewart gave Tucker Carlson:

"I'm not your monkey."

Marcus? They're not your monkey.

IMHO, if NARAL failed to support the pro-choice candidate in this race, they would be in effect proclaiming that they are nothing more than a front for the Democratic Party. I don't believe they are. Yes, they have supported D's almost exclusively, but only because you don't see an overwhelming number of races with a pro-choice R facing a pro-life D. They are a single issue advocacy group...they are focused on an individual race...look at the candidates positions and make your choice. Pretty simple, really.

Generic Propecia

buy propecia

order generic tadalafil online

Nope, NARAL's not my monkey, but when I drop a coin into their cup, I expect them to dance! ;-)

Yes, NARAL has an obligation to support pro-choice candidates, regardless of party, but Marcus has a good point; it doesn't mean much to elect a Senator who's pro-choice if he's going to vote for every "pro-life" judge the WH sets out.

There's nothing to stop NARAL from making Chafee work for its endorsement. I would have waited until the filibuster fight was over before I gave him a thumbs-up. Dance, monkey, dance!

Given the current administration's hostility towards abortion and their penchant for sticking their noses into people's personal business I don't think NARAL will lose any significant support regardless of the choice of candidates. I personally think this was a narrowly divided decision on NARAL's part - balancing rewarding the party that has supported their position unconditionally and the necessity of keeping the tent open to the rare moderate republican. The kicking and screaming is posturing to put NARAL on notice that they had better have made the right decision. This also puts Chaffeee on notice that he needs to toe the line to keep NARAL's endorsement. Stray from that and he loses votes, even moderate republican votes that are critical to his re-election.

Yes, in answer to above, I am implying that given the history of Republican politicians the past ten years and the increased partisan lock-step follow the party-line attitude that choosing a pro-birth Democrat trumps a pro-choice republican. Both Owens and Brown look certain to get their judgeships which bodes ill for NARAL and their supporters.
Had the Republican Senate majority been narrower Bush might not have chosen these two rather extreme candidates. Chaffee, when their confirmation votes come to the floor, will have to vote nay or be tagged with betraying the trust NARAL put in him. If he votes yes and the two anti-abortion judges are confirmed don't you guys think that bk's Rovish game would fail if NARAL decides to switch endorsements because Chaffee failed to support the judicial side of abortion rights? and that the more outspoken protestors of NARAL decision will look to be more accurate and prescient? Abortion supporters are not stupid. This has been a long fight and will continue for decades. They do know that not only are legislators needed to protect women's rights to choose but judges who respect privacy rights are needed as well.

Abortion has been a fake GOP issue for decades, a way of garnering money and support at little political and financial cost. Right now the religious right is powerful enough to turn it into a real issue so that now, if you're speaking of monkeys, Bill Frist and his boys are definitely monkeys.
Dance Bill! Dance!

There's nothing to stop NARAL from making Chafee work for its endorsement. I would have waited until the filibuster fight was over before I gave him a thumbs-up. Dance, monkey, dance!

LOL. Now that I can agree with. NARAL isn't the Dem's monkey, but they're the ones dropping some coins in Chafee's cup, and they know which dance they can expect (as compared to which dance they might want). The monkey is neither a contortionist nor a ballerina, and the performance repertoire is limited. And NARAL knows that it's better for them to have a small piece of the guy who won than a big piece of the guy who lost.

Oh, I got Marcus' point--but his point assumes that the only issue for the RI electorate is judges, that NARAL wouldn't suffer a body blow if they backed a pro-lifer, that the judges will rule on party and not law, that the legislative function of the Senate doesn't exist, and (repeating the obvious) that NARAL is an "owned" monkey of the Dems. All of those assumptions are either patently false or very shaky.

That's called "wishful thinking." Marcus wants the GOP monkey to dance on command for the Dems. The monkey will dance (from his limited repertoire) for the one who brung him--and that's not the Dems. Frankly, the odds of a pro-choicer taking out Chafee in RI are miniscule. He is secure in that respect from the Dems. And he's pretty darn secure from GOP vengeance as they won't run another pro-choice Republican against him, and a pro-life Republican just plain can't win RI. The monkey can pick his dances.

Ook ook.

No the assumption is that RI voters thoughts INCLUDE judgeships. Please read more closely next time.

As for monkeys, you seemed very adroit at sidestepping the existence of GOP monkey that now dances at the behest of the religious right(save for a few brave souls) in a brand of conservatism that does not put the interests of the nation first. Or maybe the story should really be about the lady who rode on the top of the tiger.

I'm ignoring it, Marcus, because it's simply not relevant. You keep pulling the same tired shopworn bullshit tactic of switching the subject when you're losing on the specifics of the subject at hand. Which is NARAL's support of Chafee. Dishonest koolaid-swilling echo-chamber stuff that wouldn't pass muster in a middle school debate, no matter how much it fires up the mindless zealots.

Parse it out, buddy. NARAL has one issue--abortion rights. NARAL supports one type of candidate--pro-choice. NARAL donors support NARAL because NARAL bundles their support to candidates who are pro-choice. If NARAL supports pro-life candidates, NARAL's donors will not donate. NARAL could give a hoot less about Democrat/Republican meta-issues, because NARAL is NOT a branch of the Democratic Party. Closer to the other way around.

It's really that bloody simple.

Exactly. Thank you so much for the dance. Here's a peanut!