I would love to join you all for your happy hour benefit – but at this point, any donations I make for the benefit of a pro-choice cause are going to go directly to candidates who are truly pro-choice. In this instance, that means that I will be donating $20 to the Ned Lamont campaign (an additional $20, as I have already donated to him more than once). I will not be supporting any pro-choice groups who continue to support candidates like Joe “Short Drive” Lieberman, who is at best opportunistically pro-choice. When it mattered, when he should have voted against cloture in the Alito nomination, he wasn’t there for us. That Planned Parenthood did not immediately yank any and all support for him after he screwed up at such a critical moment for choice means that I am left with the decision to yank my support for Planned Parenthood. I will take this invitation as a suggestion to give in a way that really matters – directly to Ned Lamont.

Sarah

All of them have supported him in the past. All of them have campaign contributions invested in him (note, though, that most of the unions have only agreed to support him through the primary, as I understand it).

One of the things lurking behind, at least, the union support is that they might believe that someone new would not have the clout to do some dealmaking when the next round of base closings occur. Joe’s making a big deal about saving New London. And, unions get a fair amount of work from defense dollars.

Might not be something like that, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were. The others (NARAL, Planned Parenthood) might depend, as I suggested, on funding from corporations which have Lieberman in their pocket.

Money makes the world go `round. !

The firepower lined up against us is remarkable. The DSCC, the Connecticut Democratic Party, Sierra Club, NARAL, League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, NALC, NAGE, Food and Commercial Workers, Teamster’s, Firefighters, Carpenters, Postal Workers, IBEW, Human Rights Campaign, 40 Senators, John Lewis, etc. [From Matt Stoller at http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186778 <p><a href="mailto:mamazboy@181">mamazboy@181</a></p> <p>I’m not sure how that coercion might work, but, it might go something like this: Corporation XXX has supported Ol’ Joe for years, because he does good things for them in the Senate (or, at least, listens to their lobbyists). At some point in the past, Ol’ Piety suggests that Corporation XXX donate to NARAL, because they endorse him, common interests and all that. </p> <p>Now, when the chips are down, Ol’ Pinky Ring calls up Corporation XXX and says, “y’know, NARAL is under a lot of pressure to withdraw their support for me, and they’re pretty influential with the savvy voters. Would be a shame if they made a critical difference in a tight race (know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge). </p> <p>Now, multiply that by five, or six, or ten, or twenty. NARAL starts getting calls that make them very nervous. And they don’t have to be obvious calls, either. “Y’know, we’re steady contributors to Joe Lieberman, and we think he’s the best in the Senate for your interests. Would be a shame for him to lose a tight race because of NARAL’s lack of endorsement.”</p> <p>Something like that….</p> <p>Cheers.</p> mamazboy@181

I’m not sure how that coercion might work, but, it might go something like this: Corporation XXX has supported Ol’ Joe for years, because he does good things for them in the Senate (or, at least, listens to their lobbyists). At some point in the past, Ol’ Piety suggests that Corporation XXX donate to NARAL, because they endorse him, common interests and all that.

Now, when the chips are down, Ol’ Pinky Ring calls up Corporation XXX and says, “y’know, NARAL is under a lot of pressure to withdraw their support for me, and they’re pretty influential with the savvy voters. Would be a shame if they made a critical difference in a tight race (know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Now, multiply that by five, or six, or ten, or twenty. NARAL starts getting calls that make them very nervous. And they don’t have to be obvious calls, either. “Y’know, we’re steady contributors to Joe Lieberman, and we think he’s the best in the Senate for your interests. Would be a shame for him to lose a tight race because of NARAL’s lack of endorsement.”

Something like that….

Cheers.

]]> http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186775 mamazboy Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:04:29 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186775 <p>I’m with #180 on this. There must be something missing here, besides the obvious one of institutional inability to say “sorry, we fucked up and will now make it right.” Did Holy Joe threaten NARAL with some kind of non-support or other funding-type problem if he gets elected and they don’t endorse him? (Not sure what that non-support would be — anybody?) But whenever I see a group like this hold onto an obviously wrong stance with a death grip, I suspect there must be financial/funding pressure being brought to bear. And it looks to me like NARAL’s assuming His Joe-ness will be elected and like all courtier-minded types, they’ll be ready to swallow any pride they have left (along with the long-vanished ethics) when he re-ascends to the throne.</p> I’m with #180 on this. There must be something missing here, besides the obvious one of institutional inability to say “sorry, we fucked up and will now make it right.” Did Holy Joe threaten NARAL with some kind of non-support or other funding-type problem if he gets elected and they don’t endorse him? (Not sure what that non-support would be — anybody?) But whenever I see a group like this hold onto an obviously wrong stance with a death grip, I suspect there must be financial/funding pressure being brought to bear. And it looks to me like NARAL’s assuming His Joe-ness will be elected and like all courtier-minded types, they’ll be ready to swallow any pride they have left (along with the long-vanished ethics) when he re-ascends to the throne.

]]> http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186764 montag Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:47:44 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186764 <p>Late getting in on this, but… wouldn’t it be worth the time to see if NARAL has corporate contributors that cross-match to Lieberman’s corporate contributors and/or his wife’s clients?</p> <p>Of course, that’s sometimes difficult to determine since non-profits don’t have to list contributors who donate less than $50K (I think) annually on their Form 990. </p> <p>But, there has to be a reason why NARAL would support a candidate with creds notably inferior to those of his opponent in the area of NARAL’s interests. </p> <p>Very often, that reason is money. ! It’s why the ACLU will not bend on its position that corporations are equivalent to natural persons and deserve protection of their rights the same as human beings. Much of their operating costs are underwritten by large corporations. </p> <p>Maybe the same thing is at work here.</p> Late getting in on this, but… wouldn’t it be worth the time to see if NARAL has corporate contributors that cross-match to Lieberman’s corporate contributors and/or his wife’s clients?

Of course, that’s sometimes difficult to determine since non-profits don’t have to list contributors who donate less than $50K (I think) annually on their Form 990.

But, there has to be a reason why NARAL would support a candidate with creds notably inferior to those of his opponent in the area of NARAL’s interests.

Very often, that reason is money. ! It’s why the ACLU will not bend on its position that corporations are equivalent to natural persons and deserve protection of their rights the same as human beings. Much of their operating costs are underwritten by large corporations.

Maybe the same thing is at work here.

]]> http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186738 fourmorewars Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:54:48 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/12/naral-responds/#comment-186738 <p>She has since clarified her position.</p> <p>Thusly:</p> <p>‘All things being equal, we would rather the horse was still in the barn.’</p> She has since clarified her position.

Thusly:

‘All things being equal, we would rather the horse was still in the barn.’

]]>