I guess it should be no surprise that Nancy Keenan and the national NARAL PAC are lying to Connecticut voters on behalf of Joe Lieberman. They endorsed him even after he voted for cloture on Samuel Alito and came out against CT NARAL's signature issue of last year (trying to require all publicly funded hospitals to provide Plan B contraception to rape victims — Joe famously said that after being raped they were free to take a "short ride" to another hospital if they wanted to).
But let's not pretend this is a "mistake." Keenan and NARAL are fully aware of Ned Lamont's position on pro-choice and Plan B contraception, which are considerably less Stone Age than Short Ride Lieberman's. And yet on their map of pro-choice candidates state-by-state, they list as the only pro-choice Senate candidate in Connecticut — Joe Lieberman.
And it's not like they don't know there's a problem with the map. The problem was pointed out to them last week by the same readers who alerted me, and they've done nothing to correct it.
NARAL is also endorsing Republicans Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson in CT, and as Katha Pollitt points out, this is insanity. Or it would be to anyone actually interested in defending a woman's right to choose in this country. I'm just not convinced this is Keenan's top priority, and I think with good reason.
Related posts:
- And the Catholic Bishops Endorse! A Special Thank-You To Planned Parenthood and NARAL
- NARAL Board Member Lincoln Chaffee Voted for Cloture on Alito
- Why Is Lieberman Scared of Big, Bad Rachel Maddow?
- Klein on How Lieberman Went Bad: It’s All Jane’s Fault
- Will Planned Parenthood and NARAL Score the House Health Care Bill?
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
I’m beginning to think the public is actually insulted when a candidate does not take PAC money. As if using your own was some kind of snub. Like a refusing someone’s soup or coffee when you ask to use their phone.
I wonder if Senator Boxer has learned from her mistake about Lieberman on this issue.
It seems to me that, like any organization, NARAL’s leadership is up to its members. If this were a union, then union members could vote out the leadership. What recourse do NARAL members have?
Ned!
Lieberman, the only pro choice candidate in CT??? Please….. NARAL needs to get it’s act together before they become obsolete.
Deacon Blues @ 3
The other issue is their credibility with non-members who assume they are actually what they say they are. NARAL endorses candidates and presumabley provides special-interest pundits or at least ‘informed commentors’ to the media for interviews, talk shows and article research as well as policy and government commissions, no?
Because of this Liebermess, his vote for cloture and the national women’s groups sticking with him I have stopped giving to those groups, along with DCCC and DSCC. I only give to DNC and my local action groups.
So the question one has to ask is:
Has NARAL been infiltrated by anti-choice operatives bent on destroying the organization from within?
Don’t think the anti-choice folks would stoop to such a thing? Think again.
noen @ 10
you could well be right…
dammit.
OT– Webb rally from 10/28 in Annandale will be played on cspan 1 at 130 pm today.
iowa christine @
5
I’m already thinking that they’ve made themselves obsolete. With an utter lack of understanding about how cloture works, to the inability to adjust to the specifics of the current abortion debate, they’ve effectively made themselves obsolete. It may just take a while for them to realize that, though.
My tinfoil hat tells me that the candidates they’re endorsing are because these candidates took money, and that NARAL has it backwards. They seem to think that they can buy people to behave a certain way, rather than understanding you have to both buy them to get them to do what you want as well as punish them when they don’t. When has NARAL punished anyone for not doing what they said they’d do when they accepted NARAL money? If they never have punished such candidates, why don’t they?
from a DKos comment thread:
My guess is that Lieberman4Lieberman either bribed Keenan personally, NARAL, or both. It has to be about the money.
NARAL as a corporation should have bylaws that spell out whom they support and oppose. Maybe they are violating their own bylaws. Somebody should check that out.
No more $$$ from me!
this is the problem with groups that see themselves as focused on a single issue- if they actually solve the issue, their raison d`etre goes away… and then the group slides away silently into the night.
With Rape Gurney Joe in office, NARAL knows that they’ll always have to worry about protecting a woman’s right to choose, becuase they know Joe will vote against it every chance he gets.
See? Elect Joe, and then point to Joe as a reason you need to give more money to NARAL. They did it with Strip-Search Sammy, they’re doing the exact same thing here.
mmr @ 10:27 am (#10)
I think it’s worse than that – NARAL have made themselves useless. If they were obsolete they could at least use their obsolete methods to do some good. Instead, they are actively subverting their own cause here by enabling one of the most prominent offenders. What’s worse, they are actually damaging the candidates who might do better for them by being elected, when all they really had to do was point out that both candidates were pro-choice, but they liked one better.
The utter stupidity of this is breathtaking. These fools have gotten the last dime they’ll ever get out of me.
I made NARAL take me off their mailing lists and will never support them again.
Girl’s gotta have her standards.
Boy, do I feel betrayed for all the years of me and my family marching, donating, talking, voting – you name it – for NARAL.
Never again.
Not one more dime!
Does NARAL still think that Rockefeller Republicans control the GOP? That situation hasn’t obtained for damn near three decades.
They won’t see another dime from me.
Reminds me: Anyone see their response to Katha Pollit’s article in The Nation? Talk about being deliberately obtuse! They simply can’t admit that they screwed up.
Please excuse my diary whoring here — I’ve got my last diary about Charlie Brown up at Kos with links to Nate’s interviews with Paul Hackett and Charlie Brown. I would love some recommends from those so inclined!
who owns naral anyway? is joe their only supporter in congress? maybe they think they have no choice?
I would go to corporate ownership and see if it has been infiltrated first
then, look at the details.
sounds like an organization that is about to become, well, not?
Cujo, I think you’re pretty correct. But as someone else stated, it’s about money and they want us to support their lifestyles without having to really work for it.
Kitt @ 2
No.
What has happened to the national organization of NARAL is a fairly common occurrence. A group is formed to promote a particular issue or agenda but over time focus is lost on its original purpose, especially at the national level, and its raison d’etre becomes its own continued existence.
HRC is still supporting Joe too. It’s like chickens supporting Col. Sanders.
I joined their mailing list just so I could tell them repeatedly why they won’t be getting any money from me.
Try it – it’s fun!
I actually feel horrible not giving when they ask, so have made sure I doubly contribute to the local Planned Parenthood.
Yeah, I’d been a pretty frequent (if small) contributor to NARAL, but their mailings have been going straight to the recycling bin ever since Alito.
This just leaves me speechless. I wish I had a fireplace for the next time they mail me something.
This really bothers me about Barbara Boxer. Yet I will always love her for her willingness to object to the tainted Ohio vote in 2004.
Would anyone send money to NARAL if real pro-choice supporters controlled the WH, congress, senate and the supreme court?
No that would be a silly waste of money. The best way to force money into NARAL is for abortion rights to be severely curtailed.
And if you were one of the people who get a cut of every dollar that flows into NARAL, who would you endorse? Follow the money, it always tells the real story.
noen @
8
Since we’ve been through this in the primary and rasied a holy stink then (with no useful response), I would suspect a reason like this. The other possibility is that the board of directors is personally connected in some way with Joe and the other questionable candidates. This is the way boards work—often personal agendas drive a board decision. It takes time and a lot of effort and in-fighting to “clean” a board. Ain’t no different than changing the Democratic party leadership from old-school centrists that kiss up to the GOP and expect to get kissed back (and never seem to learn), to reality-based progressive leadership.
Interesting bits from “Meet Our President”
Conservative Time magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan said that NARAL Pro-Choice America showed “pro-choice abortion activists [are] getting smarter about their strategy.”
Red State Roots: Montana Native
As a former elected official, Nancy understands the challenges candidates and office holders face on the campaign trail. She’s run statewide in a so-called “red” state and has won. Nancy is the first president of NARAL Pro-Choice America who has been elected to public office – a valuable asset to NARAL Pro-Choice America, known as the “political arm of the pro-choice movement.”
Hrrrm.
This way, even though I’m literally repeating myself, word for word, I don’t have to retype, which somehow makes it seem less boring.
Actually, re-repeating. ;-) We all win.
noen @
8
I don’t see any other conclusion to reach. It’s the most obvious.
I’ve stopped supporting them, and told them why. They call periodically, but the calls are far fewer. Maybe it’s time to start a real NARAL, one that understands what’s at stake, and how to fight tooth and nail for it.
Sounds like it’s time for our CT bretheren to get involved and start voting in the local NARAL chapters.
Vote these idiots straight outta their leadership positions. Let them go work for some republican lobbying group.
smiley @
15
I agree with the point about mixed incentives if their cause were to go away. However, reproductive rights, like all individual liberties related issues, always need vigilant protection and therefore never go away.
There is more to NARAL’s non-tactical actions and their choice to take steps in direct opposition to their stated mission. What is really happening is that groups like NARAL have graduated from fighting for a cause to the comfort of just talking about it. They’ve learned that there is just as much money, in fact more money, in talking about a hot-button issue than actually stepping on the toes needed to accomplish something on behalf of the people NARAL claims to represent.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying these folks are lazy. Nancy Keenan and her unproductive political posse are ambitiously cynical.
slainte,
cl
After doing some checking, here’s what APPEARS to the case with these short-sighted endorsements:
Nat’l NARAL, as a not-for-profit, non-partisan org. seems to endorse on the basis of a voting “scorecard”. If an incumbent meets their scorecard criteria, they are endorsed. There seems to be either a precendent, or a policy, that they will never endorse against an incumbent who meets those criteria — regardless of party affiliation or impact on issues other than those promoted by the organization. Thus, challengers to incumbents who have voted “correctly” need never fear that a challenger will be endorsed against them.
That seems to me, if it is indeed correct, to be a very narrow, and potentially self-defeating, point of view.
Getting rid of Joe Lieberman is like giving us five extra Senators — that’s how much easier it will be for Harry Reid to control the Senate Democratic caucus and enforce message discipline.
NARAL stopped being about abortion rights years ago. They’re far more interested in being friendly with incumbents.
OT – I’m starting to feel like I need either a crystal ball or a valium…
what a case of nerves I’ve got today!
kindness @ 10:56 am (#34)
Jane’s pointed out that in this case, the CT NARAL folks understand what’s going on, it’s the national group that seems to have the cognitive disability.
whoops, just landed myself in moderation jail because of the “v” word… darn! I forgot!
LJ/Aquaria @
33
It definitely looks like Keenan is getting some serious kickback coin from someone.
Street money possibly in play here. I’ll bet that the NARAL endorsement was purchased by Joe.
I stopped contributing to NARAL years ago when they insisted on supporting Bob Packwood over an equally pro-choice Les AuCoin. Then Packwood was forced to resign over gross sexual harassment.
marksb @ 29
I don’t think a takeover is impossible (it was openly attempted at the Sierra Club), but I don’t see the wingers being subtle enough to have hidden it this long if they did it.
I think it’s a combination of a tendency toward familiarity and even more, being risk-averse. Their methodology seems to be “decide if the incumbent is pro-choice first, and if so, don’t bother looking at whether the challenger is better.” For an incumbent, they can base their endorsement on a meaningless scorecard, and not have to actually take any responsibility for it.
The second part of being risk-averse is that they know that most incumbents win, and they worry more about pissing off the incumbent than putting pressure on him by punishing him for failing them. This may be a reasonable strategy when your cause is progressing, but it’s disastrous when you’re losing ground. There’s no threat if an officeholder gives you only token support, so there’s no incentive for them to take up a difficult fight against your enemies.
NARAL’s fundraisers still calls our house, and every time we tell them they’ve lost us over Lieberman. The poor minimum-wage fundraisers often say “yeah, we hear a lot of that.”
Agree marksb.
I looked for a list of the national Board of Directors, but couldn’t find anything. The state, boards, however, appear to be obtainable on the state NARAL sites.
IIRC, CT NARAL bucked Keenan and endorsed Ned, at least in the primary. WRT overall structure, national NARAL is a 501(c)3. I assume it controls NARAL PAC, and NARAL’s Foundation.
Phoenix Woman @ 10:59 am (#37)
Actual control of the Senate is a long shot this year, I think. The Democrats are defending more seats than the Reupublicans by a rather wide margin, so gaining seats is much harder than it should be. My hope is that we at least get a cloture-proof minority. Getting rid of Lieberman, as you observed, would go a long way toward reaching that goal.
new thread – Matt’s back with more from Ohio
I think we have to consider the possibility that national NARAL has been coopted by the Republicans. Specifically, do any of its officers or their spouses have corporate or Republican clients? I ask because 20 years ago the Virginia Women’s Political Caucus was coopted in precisely this way.
Bring cameras, camcorders, digitial video records to the polling places. these machines are all flipping votes.
All Four Major E-Voting Machines Flip Votes in Early Voting
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA
November 05, 2006
Early voting in five states showed that voters’ choice are being flipped to the opposite candidate on all four major e-voting machines — Diebold TSx, Sequoia Edge, ES&S iVotronic, and Hart InterCivic eSlate.
Three counties in Texas report vote-flipping on the Diebold and ES&S machines. Three counties in Florida report vote-flipping on the ES&S and Sequoia machines. One county in Illinois, on the Sequioa Edge, and one county in Arkansas, on the ES&S iVotronic.
In some cases, when the voter selects one candidate, the machine shows an opponent is selected instead.
A South Florida voter reports:
“When I touched the one [button] for the Democratic vote, that button disappeared and the vote went to the Republican.”
And from Illinois:
“Corrine Stoker pushed the button for one candidate, but her voting machine showed she voted for the opponent.”
In other cases, the votes are reported wrong on the review screen. From Texas:
“El Paso County Attorney Jos Rodrguez said 16 people complained Friday that a vote cast on their touch-screen ballot was the wrong vote when they reviewed their ballots.”
And from Florida:
“He touched the screen for gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, a Democrat, but the review screen repeatedly registered the Republican, Charlie Crist.”
Douglas Jones, a computer scientist at the University of Iowa, says he’s heard similar stories from voters in several states, including one computer scientist in South Carolina who said that his attempts to vote for one candidate on the iVotronic were repeatedly changed to an opposing candidate by the time he got to the voter verification screen.”
Officials normally explain the vote-flipping as calibration errors — touches on the screen are simply registering incorrectly They point to the 15-step process that poll workers can do to re-calibrate the screen.
But vote-flipping on the eSlate can’t be explained as a calibration error, since the eSlate doesn’t have a touch screen. Voters use physical dials and buttons to move the highlight on the screen and make their selections.
A professor at Murray State University in Murray, Kentucky (Calloway County) used the eSlate in early voting and reports that his straight-party votes were switched to the opposite party in contested races:
“I tried to vote a straight ticket, but when I checked the final page, which summarizes one’s vote, I noticed that I had voted for some of the candidates of the other party. I went to the first screen again and ticked the straight ticket box for the Democratic party, and, again, I found that for all of the contested races the Republican boxes were ticked.
“I had to go through individually to tick the Democratic boxes. I’m not a Democrat, and I don’t suspect vast right-wing some conspiracy. I’m just telling those of you who will be voting soon to check the summarizing page carefully, regardless of your voting preferences.”
UPDATE Now the ES&S iVotronics in Sarasota County Florida aren’t flipping, just deleting votes from the summary screen. Several people from different polling places report that their votes for Jennings (Dem candidate for 13 Cong Dist) don’t appear on the review screen. They have to go back and vote for her again.
Comment on This Article
http://www.votetrustusa.org/in…..;Itemid=26
Titanyum @
13
If you are a NARAL member this is something to persue
Bivey Memo @ 50
Check your state law first, filming voters is illegal in some states for a very good reason.
ok I just a vocie mail ar NRCC communications director (2024797070) stating that I was callin with some information about the Republican National Party.. They are liars, cheaters and thieves. Thanks so much!
childish.
Yes
am I gald I did it?
You betcha
Don’t be too hard on Nancy Keenan for her support of Joe Liarman. After all, she’s carrying his child.
(This has been another unsupported scurrilous rumor.)
Redshift @
45
Yeah, I think Redshift’s got it right here. There’s no conspiracy here to subvert NARAL, they’re just riding the horse they think is going to win. (And, unfortunately, it looks like they backed the right horse.) I think that’s pretty shortsighted, because eventually you no longer stand for any principles…but it’s hardly a new strategy.
I will not support NARAL until they get their shit together. The last few mailings asking me to re-new have gone in the trash. When I get a minute I’ll let them know why but I don’t think they are using my money to support women’s rights. More like lining their pockets.
You know, Schlesinger is pro-choice too, so NARAL really should have listed all three candidates as being pro-choice.
You might want to rephrase that. I _think_ you mean that you have good reason to suspect Keenan’s priorities, but it can more easily be interpreted as saying that Keenan has good reason to have a different top priority.
Bivey Memo @ 11:22 am (#49)
I’ve sometimes had problems like this with touch-screen charge card readers, like the ones Best Buy uses, for instance. Sometimes, you can poke right in the middle of one button, and it will act like you haven’t pressed anything. Somehow, the registration is off between the space on the screen and the sensors underneath it.
Yet another reason why we need to revisit the whole voting machine design and validation process. This could simply be a QA problem with some of the parts they use or how they’re assembled.
In the computer business, quality costs money, and I think we need to get over the idea that electronic voting can be both cheap and reliable.
John Casper @ 12
And the Florida 2000 Brown Shirts in Suits.
NARAL shouldn’t get our money. Electing moderate Republicans is what allowed Tom Delay to run ramshod over women’s rights.
Name one way that Nancy Johnson stopped the wingnuts NARAL. Token opposition doesn’t count.
Kos nailed it in Crashing the Gate.
These single issue groups have long out lived their usefulness to the progressive agenda and now do more harm than good. It’s past time to make them irrelevant.
Who gives a fuck what NARAL thinks? That needs to be the marching song. NARAL? Who cares? The just another bunch of bought and paid for hacks cluttering up the scene. They won’t even stand up for what they supposedly stand for, ergo, they stand for nothing.
Messed up the quote feature–it was supposed to be the one about Lieberman bringing in Jame Baker.
Anyway, perhaps national NARAL is trying any which may they can to appear bipartisan. But, to say only Lieberman is pro-choice?
Hah.
Cancel your memberships, don’t send them any more money, educate your friends about them. NARAL needs to find out that there’s a price to be paid for crap like this.
Thank you for this post–I just sent NARAL America an email telling them I’m outraged that they’ve listed JL as the CT pro-choice candidate and that I will be advising my other progressive friends that NARAL is NOT what it purports to be.
Do you really expect a pro-choice organization to abandon pro-choice incumbents because they have pro-choice challengers in the right party? NARAL isn’t a partisan organization and loses whatever non-partisan credibility they have if they only endorse Democrats in tight races.
Say it ain’t so regarding Joe.
I donated once in a while over the years but NARAL just lost me too.
I really hope someone from naral is reading this post and the comments. They just might learn something. But,like the policman on South Park says “Nothing to see here” is probably what they would say. The “new” naral … pathetic.
Now, I think we can safely say that NARAL is not an organization of jack-booted thugs. We can also surmise that it would be unfair to characterise them as proto fascist. But over the past few years they have indulged in the most astoundingly reactionary, naive and parochial politics. They hurt their own cause as much as that of liberals in general. Let them wither away.
I noticed something interesting — if you check NARAL’s Pennsylvania page, they list no pro-choice candidates running for Senate. Under anti-choice candidates they’re urging folks to vote against, they only list Rick Santorum. So, NARAL is apparently also lying for Bob Casey.
NARAL is white suburban women who kind of want abortion to remain legal. They are Republicans on all issues but choice. The also like tax cuts however so Lieberman is their compromise candidate.
I am one of the charter members of the first NOW chapter in Milwaukee (and the only male) in about 1969 or 70. As such, I have supported NARAL through mailing-donations since it was formed since I was surely on their earliest mailing lists.
But after reading this, although I’ll die supporting their objectives, I’ll put my money elsewhere. This is very politically suspect at the very least.
Re comment #50:
I read somewhere on the web last night that the machines were more likely to flip on straight ticket voting so he (the commenter) was including at least one green party candidate somewhere on the ticket.
Fully intend to bring my digital camera, also.
I still get calls from NARAL aksing for money. I don’t insult the solicitor but ask him/her to let NARAL higher ups know that I will no longer contribute BECAUSE of the NARAL support of Joe.
NARAL has been working tirelessly in SD to prevent abortion from becoming illegal there. I think the criticism here is a little shortsighted.
donna @
17
Oh wow, a Real Genius quote(tm)! And a good one:
http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/37075/real23.wav
In the blogosphere, we should remember that there are people out there who don’t know the acronyms. Otherwise, we’re just talking to ourselves, instead of reaching out. So please, spell out what NARAL stands for.
thanks.
Joe Mawmuh @ 66
Yes I do. Which party will fund reproductive choice, access to contraception? Which one won’t let it come out of committee. Tom Delay style house won’t allow moderate Republicans to do much other than take orders. It would be like saying that I am endorsing Pol Pot’s cousin in the elections because he is a moderating influence on Pol. No, he’s not. He is a pip squeak with no power.
Deacon Blues @
3
This is an excellent question. I am a NARAL member and I am outraged. This is the first that I have heard about this, and even though it’s too late to do any good in this election, they are going to be hearing from me.
I have donated to NARAL in the past, and I donated again when Bush got reelected. Then I joined when Alito got confirmed to the Court. I did this based on their reputation, and never thought twice about whether they really stand for choice. Thank you, FDL!
I bet a lot of netroots people are NARAL supporters, and I bet it would really shake them up if they heard from us, in droves.
KKinSF @ 24
Nah, Hillary is supporting Lamont. She was one of the first party leaders to say she would support whoever won the primary, and was the first party leader to cut Lamont a check after he won.
One thing progressives should realize, often single-issue PACs have no desire to see their issue resolved, because that would cut down on the money they receive and the notoriety they have. They end up caring more about their own finances and existence more than they care about the issues they supposedly represent.
I think NARAL is a prime example of this.
Raymond Barglow @
77
Are you saying YOU don’t know what NARAL stands for, Raymond? Or are you saying that you DO know what it stands for, but you’ll be GD-ed if you’re going to waste keystrokes typing it out, and demand that someone else do it? Your first two sentences say “we”, but your last sentence does not. Why don’t “we” google NARAL?
HTH
John Casper @ 12
Oh, it’s about money, all right. The primary need of any organization (NARAL’s no exception) is the ongoing fund-raising it must continue to do with its own donors list. I can’t begin to suggest that I can see the details, but their support for HolyJoe, Simmons & Johnson, and Linc Chafee are very clear pointers.
They value their own cash-flow over and above their own policy agenda.
What’s was interesting was telling off the National organization when they called months ago, looking for money. Told the caller that their support of LIEberman cost them my support, forever and that they were a farce in my book. Was told that “I’m sorry you feel that way” and they haven’t called back. Hopefully, that got the message across and I won’t get another call. Their mailers go in the recycle bin unopened and I’m not even bothering to tell them to stop mailing. I did un-subscribe from their mailing lists, as I don’t even want to see their emails anymore. Time to create a new national organization that will actually demand more from candidates than Joe’s phony record. I’m getting sick of these organizations that use these scorecards and not their brains. For example, this Veterans organization who used as part of their criteria–the Authorization of Force. Had that not passed, they wouldn’t have to rate how politicians treat the Troops suffering from gop neglect.
Cujo359 @ 47
Larry Sabato is predicting Dems net 6 additional seats, giving them a bare working majority (with Joe in their caucus).
Wow. I’m pretty disturbed by this thread. One thing off the top:
* I’m biased. My wife works for NARAL, and I’ve spent the last several years phonebanking, canvassing, volunteering and marching along a lot of the folks being maligned in a lot of these posts.
That said, I think there are some points that need to be made…
1. Most importantly, there is *no other group* doing as much in as many places to secure a pro-choice Congress. This race is a whole lot bigger than Lamont/Lieberman… and no other national choice organization has invested anywhere near as much time, money and resources in electing pro-choice candidates like Pederson in Arizona, McNerney in California, Perlmutter in Colorado, Cardin in Maryland and plenty more.
2. NARAL remains committed to Choice. It’s patently ridiculous to say that NARAL has abandoned its committment to Choice.
Just how many folks posting on this thread have been out to South Dakota to fight the abortion ban there? I know plenty of folks who have… and they’re mostly NARAL staffers. These are (mostly) women who face threats and violence morning, noon and night just to try to restore some sanity.
NARAL is also one of the very few Choice groups out there who are advancing a comprehensive pro-active agenda on reproductive rights. Their work over the last few years has been instrumental in outing the radical agenda of the Tony Perkins, Fred Dobson and the Arlington Group crowd on birth control, sex ed and a lot of other issues that the vast majority of Americans agree on.
3. Not my cup of Joe, but he still can do some good.
The Alito vote was a betrayal and the plan b comments inexcusable, but unfortunately — in an anti-choice Senate led by Bill Frist — NARAL doesn’t have the luxury of writing off folks like Lieberman who can help and have helped stop anti-choice amendments to must-pass bills, hold nominees like Hagar the Horrible and Crawford accountable for putting politics over science, and pass some of the only pro-choice legislation in the last Congress. NARAL has to fight for Choice regardless of who controls Congress.
Of course, securing victories in Congress would be a hell of a lot easier in a more Pro-Choice Congress… which is why NARAL is working harder than most of the other groups out there to secure a Pro-Choice Congress and Senate by putting their money, their people and their efforts into winning races.
I certainly understand the dissatisfaction, but if our shared goal is to secure respect for reproductive rights and personal privacy, I really think focusing exclusively on Lamont/Lieberman is counterproductive.
Money buys anything. I would suggest strongly those have the skills to do so, start looking at the key players inside NARAL.
This is no ideological shift. This bribery and graft at work.
It’s not just NARAL, it’s all over the place. It’s time to start tearing into the massive corruption that is invading so many of our previously progressive institutions; it’s time to challenge them, or destroy them.
Chris—are you aware that NARAL’s Pro-Choice America website cancelled their own Action Alert prior to the cloture vote on Alito?
NARAL let Liarman and his ilk off the hook on the vote that was its only hope of stopping the Alito confirmation.
South Dakota’s initiative might well have not gained traction if the proponents of that effort didn’t think they had a chance with a newly sympathetic Supreme Court.
I know I speak for many here when I say that we wish we could trust that NARAL truly had the best interests of pro-choice in mind, but some of their recent actions have created serious questions about their strategic thinking.
To commenter #70 — apparently you don’t know Casey’s position. Check it before you vote.
To commenter #86 — please thank your wife and her coworkers for me. Without them, we already would have lost Roe v. Wade in a lot more places, not just in the places like my state (Wisconsin) where it doesn’t really exist except in one small area, hundreds of miles from so many women here.
To all commenters who say they no longer are giving or will give to NARAL — there are many ways to support women’s reproductive rights. And many organizations doing good political groundwork. Consider Feminist Majority Foundation, which had a lot to do with the great GOTV effort on campuses in 2004 and will do it again, with your help.
With all the money mentioned here that no longer is going to NARAL, I expect to see the coffers of other organizations overflowing.
so let us see- naral needs funds to carry on its work. It gets its money from its membership predominantly. Thus- Screw naral! Supporting liebershit is one thing BUT supporting 2 goper reps is just outrageous. Take your hands out of your pockets folks when it comes to naral and maybe some E mails to let them know just what a joke they have become.
I received a request for money from naral last week. I signed the petitions and wrote get your money from Joe in CT. over the amount I enclosed.
Okay, let’s repeat the drill very slowly now, so everyone gets it…
NARAL intentionally punted on the filibusters for the anti-choice justices. It intentionally sat out the original anti-choice SoDak legislation campaign and has underfunded and under-organized for tomorrow’s SoDak referendum. I am on their contact list in a liberal state adjoining SoDak (Minnesota, cough) and I already have received 2 invites to NARAL’s December big money annual dinner, but just one letter to donate for SoDak, and exactly zero calls or letters to volunteer for their nonexistent “campaign” there.
Like many formerly “liberal” organizations, NARAL now exists to perpetuate itself, and has no interest in actually winning on its issues. It seems to exist now to guarantee jobs to its employees and fundraisers. Lieberman, Simmons and Johnson are good for NARAL exactly because they are ineffective and unreliable, and thus help preserve the permanent NARAL franchise. Which is why I stopped giving them money, and you should, too. Give directly to pro-choice candidates and cut these weenies out of the action!
Cujo359 @ 47
Thing is, I wasn’t even talking about control of the full Senate, just the Democratic caucus. Right now, Lieberman makes it all-but-impossible for the Senate Democrats to speak with a united voices on the issues that matter.
That’s it. I’ve given enough blood, sweat and tears to this increasingly willfully obtuse organization over the years.
It’s over, done with, NARAL you are dead to me.
Chris @
86
Nice strawman.
There are many opportunities for NARAL to make individual choices to advance their cause. One has to wonder why being active in ND cripples NARAL from making THE OBVIOUS CHOICE in CT. Oh right. It doesn’t.
Olympia Snowe and Joementum are good for the fundraising cycle. They are not good for reproductive rights.
Mega-yawn for the concern trolling.
Chris @ 86
Naral supporting Joe is absurd. You have to do better than some stupid scorecard to justify their support of Lieberman. I’m sorry if you are offended, but you should make it clear that NARAL’s support of Lieberman has cost them the support of progressives. Perhaps some of us can support it again, but like AARP (when they sold out on the Medicare Fraud Bill), I can’t see myself supporting NARAL at all. Sorry, you can use South Dakota as a justification for their existance, but justifying NARAL when they supported the Re-Election of Benedict Lieberman isn’t acceptable. If he was really for Choice, he wouldn’t have voted for Cloture for Scalito. Quite simply, his vote against Alito was a sham and if your wife wants to work for an organization that supports fake pro-choice candidates–well, most here aren’t going to waste money on them. As I said before, we have to move beyond these scorecards that don’t take into account, things like voting for Cloture. Joe’s a Repug or at worst, a Repug Enabler. NARAL shares the same boat, by supporting him.
You postion NARAL as the last defender of Choice, but like South Dakota, they seem to fight only after the damage is done. By enabling the Right Wing, Joe helped fuel the Wing Nut firestorm that helped push South Dakota’s challenge to Roe. If the Wingnuts hadn’t gotten Scalito, they wouldn’t have used this legislation, which was clearly designed to overturn Roe before the Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, etc Court.
As to countering WingNuts like Dobson, Perkins, Haggard,etc–it seems that they really fell down on this. The only thing that has been effective against these lunatics is themselves and NARAL can’t take credit for that.
As to counting on Lieberman to protect Choice, this is as stupid as Counting on Bush to be honest.