Who the fuck else can you insult?

You've been around here what, two-three weeks? You know what the FPers are looking for in front page posts to promote? You know what Markos's motivations and political beliefs are?

Do you have anything constructive to bring to this important discussion, or just more epithets to toss around>

on MyLeftWing.  Now, you may not have noticed, but Maryscott OConnor doesn't take shit from anyone; she's had some serious issues with Kos's gender politics; and she's an ardent feminist.

There is nothing in this post about moving away from choice.  There is a great deal of criticism for methodology (endorsing Republicans, for God's sake, the quintessential anti-choice party); criticism for lack of political sagacity; and criticism for one particularly unhelpful ad.

It does not, in any way, critique the underlying policy.  The suggestion that we create a new frame, privacy, to encapsulate the many liberal positions, is a good one.  Privacy could protect gay sex.  It could protect women's health choices.  It could protect us all from intrusive wiretapping.  And there is absolutely no way that anyone could be anti-privacy without looking like a whacked out lunatic fringe moron.  It's a win-win strategy.

Notice that this is a new frame.  It is not a retreat.  It is, frankly, nothing more than thinking outside of the envelope-- strategically.

This post is a blunt, honest assessment of what is wrong with NARAL's approach.  It's the bare beginning of a much-needed method workshop.  It is not an attack upon the fundamental goal of protecting women's rights to reproductive freedom and choice.  It was not written by a Kos sycophant.  Liza has her own blog (where she is doing very well, I think).  She is attempting to broadcast this post because she clearly thinks it is important.

I believe she is correct.

Please, understand that criticism is sometimes a necessary part of rethinking a failing strategy.  Let me be blunt: the highwater mark of women's rights occurred before I was born, inscribed in clay by a Supreme Court decision of unparalleled bravery and righteousness.  Since then, however, the strategy that has been prevalent for the last twenty years has been a process of slow surrender.  Ceding territory step by step before the phenomenal aggression of the right.  Congress has slowly but steadily stripped away women's reproductive rights.  Rightwing idealogues are returned to congress again and again on the "right to life platform."

We need to reframe and rethink the debate.  And don't even try to tell me NARAL knows what it is doing.  Any chess player can see that they are heading toward a slow, agonizing checkmate ten or twenty years down the road.  Don't even try to tell me that a rethink isn't in order.  

Liza is a feminist with a powerful critique and some interesting ideas for a new approach.  Rather than lashing out like this, why in hell cant you just try listening?

Write why choice is better than the right to privacy. 1500 words minimum. Double-spaced, with links and sources. You have until tomorrow morning.