Daily Kos

NARAL, Choice, & Lincoln Chaffee

by Fran for Dean

Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:56:56 PM PDT

From NARAL's website:


Janice Rogers Brown: A "loose cannon" who writes with a "poison pen,"[3] Brown is currently a justice on the California Supreme Court. She is anti-choice, and widely known as the most conservative member of the court, dissenting in cases to oppose privacy and reproductive rights. [4] Brown twice failed to receive a "qualified" rating from a state bar commission due to her lack of impartiality and clear bias.[5]

Earlier today, "Pro-choice" Senator Lincoln Chaffee voted to confirm Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC (widely considered the "second highest court" in the nation).  Brown is seen asone of the people Bush might nominate for the Supreme Court.

NARAL is endorsing Chaffee for the 2006 US Senate race in Rhode Island, on behalf of his "pro-choice" positions.  Before endorsing Chaffee, NARAL pressured a pro-life Democrat to drop out of the primary, leaving two pro-choice candidates who they then turned their backs on.

Some people believe that it is a good thing for NARAL to endorse pro-choice Republicans, in order to not associate itself with the Democratic party and to encourage more Republicans to be pro-choice.  This is a debatable issue (one which HAS been debated extensively on this site).  I happen to disagree with that tactic as I think it is counter-productive, but that's not the point of this diary.

Regardless of where you stand on that debate, you must agree that NARAL should endorse PRO-CHOICE candidates who will vote for pro-choice legislation and not vote to confirm anti-choice extremists.

In this instance, NARAL has no reason to continue to support Lincoln Chaffee.  They should immediately withdraw their endorsement.

Contact NARAL and tell them what you think.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 24 comments

  •  I would... (none / 0)

    if I really cared what NARAL does anymore.

    by Drummond on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:13:10 PM PDT

    •  Snark (none / 0)

      I don't know if it's true, but it sounds like NARAL did tip the balance for the next election, shutting down a Democratic challenger who was polling pretty well and might have won.  If NARAL helps keep Frist, or his successor in the majority then I would think we should all care.

      Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

      by Tod on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:17:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Point is... (3.00 / 2)

        Having endorsed a Republican Senator, I don't see NARAL as an ally anymore, but simply a self-absorbed single issue group that exemplifies the very fragmentation that is destroying the Democratic Party and progressives in general.

        15 years ago, an endorsement of a moderate Republican might have made sense.  Right now, the stakes are too high and party membership alone is an overriding concern - especially as the GOP is very effective at whipping wimps like Chafee into line.

        by Drummond on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:25:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Control over my body isn't a single issue (none / 0)

          It's my body. It's got me in it.

          I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the state or the Emperor's Theologists feel they have the moral right to commandeer my body for reasons of their own, say, reproduction or picking cotton for no wages, they are to be fought tooth and nail.

          You might regard control of one's body as some fancy schmancy boutique issue.

          I regard it as integral to my life as control of my brain, heart and spirit.

          by Peanut on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:51:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And so... (none / 0)

            People living in poverty, people dying in war, the collapsing environment, declining living standards, declining civil rights, and everything else takes a back seat so that an organization can help the Republicans maintain a majority in the hope that maybe this guy will vote for choice if Fritz lets him.

            I'm starting to understand why the prochoice movement is so exclusively upper middle class.

            by Drummond on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:49:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In democracy only some people can have rights? (none / 0)

              I missed the part in the Constitution what said "We the poor people ... " I thought everybody got them.

              Which rights have you given up for [insert your cause here]?

              And where do you get these assumptions about how much I make/don't, what my background is, whatever you use in your little formula of who should have civil rights?

              by Peanut on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:26:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe I'm missing something here (none / 0)

                You're saying you have fewer rights than poor people?  I mean, I've met Libertarians and Republicans who believe that.  Never a leftist.  A first time for everything I guess.

                Makes sense since you're resorting to a Freeper tactic here attempting to paint me as anti-choice.  Reminds me of being painted as anti-American for opposition to the war.

                When did I say anything about your background?  Can you quote me verbatim?  I believe I was referring to the indisputable fact that lower income people (and many, many people of color btw) are alienated from the pro-choice organizations, and I think that the willingness to sell them out to support a cheap pol who's voted for them on occassion, but just voted to confirm a judge who's extremely bad news to all of their causes - well, I think that may have something to do with it.

                by Drummond on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:11:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Actions vs. Words (4.00 / 2)

    If Chaffee says he's pro-choice but votes lockstep with the party to confirm anti-choice judges then which is it?

    For me the question is whether NARAL really has to take a position on every single election.  I don't think so.  When NARAL is given a choice between a sitting Republican who says he's pro choice but in fact votes with the party to approve extreme right wing judges and a Democrat who might actually win, and do some good on privacy issues generally, but happens to personally be pro life, then it's perfectly OK for NARAL so sit that election out.  Say you don't really like anybody and move on to some other election where there really is somebody  to feel strongly about.

    As far as this goes, NARAL got played for a chump.  They did Chaffee a big favor by shooting down his competion and got nothing in return.

    Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

    by Tod on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:14:57 PM PDT

    •  "Which is it?" (none / 1)

      Chafee is a Republican.  First and foremost.  He votes for Bill Frist for leader and Janice Rogers Brown for the most important circuit court in the nation.  That's all you need to know.  He's the enemy.  NARAL are morons.

      If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

      by Paleo on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:23:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd like Dems to explain too (none / 1)

      Especially the allegedly pro-abortion-rights ones who get into office then vie with Republicans over who can prove abortion is wronger.

      As someone who believes in keeping abortion safe, legal and none of anyone else's fucking business, for several elections my "choice" has been between R's using it for a cynical election ploy and D's using it for a cynical election ploy.

      I'll continue to support NARAL and hope they continue nonpartisan endorsement of pro-abortion-rights candidates. If any candidate is exposed as having an opposite agenda, may that support be yanked hard, publicly and with great formula.

      NARAL can't predict the future clearly enough for those on the site? To anyone here who uses NARAL as a convenient scapegoat and/or whipping girl for Dem problems -- demand the same level of predicting the future from all pols, please, including and ESPECIALLY Dems, who have not fought hard enough for choice and not fought hard enough to keep abortion legal.

      I agree about withdrawing support from Chafee.

      by Peanut on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:45:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm embarassed to say I had no idea (none / 0)

        what NARAL was before about two weeks ago. I joined immediately to support an organization who fights for an issue that I believe in deeply. I don't agree with all this single-issue voter rhetoric on Kos. If the Dems won't come out swinging hard, I'm not sure I should come out swinging hard for them. I do see that NARAL is becoming, as you say, a convenient scapegoat - but would also agree that I'd now like to see them dump Chafee.

        But I don't support dumping the people who made the decision; or the tone of some of the gleeful pile-ons of NARAL today.

        by oysterface on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:14:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here is what I told them... (4.00 / 3)

    As a long time supporter of NARAL I am rather confused why you are supporting Lincoln Chaffee (R) of Rhode Island for re-election.  I realize that you try to support some pro-choice Republicans to show your non-partianship.  But the rules in Washington have changed since Karl Rove, Bill Frist & Tom Delay took over.  There is no room for dissent anymore for moderates and they are threatened with things to make them vote the "Republican" way when it matters like on confirming anti-choice justices.

    Please re-consider your endorsement decision and get a pro-choice Democrat to run in that heavily Democrat-Leaning state.

    We can win the battle that way.

    Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:21:54 PM PDT

    •  The Right Comparison (none / 0)

      Here's what I would say:

      They shouldn't be comparing Chafee against his colleagues.  They should be comparing him against his opponent(s).  If his opponent doesn't support a woman's right to choose, then they should support Chafee.  Agreed.  But when his opponent is going to be either Matt Brown or Sheldon Whitehouse, both of whom are pro-choice, why are they supporting anyone?  And when he is voting to confirm anti-choice judges, they should actually prefer that Brown or Whitehouse.  

      by ortcutt on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:39:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Support (none / 1)

        "Support" doesn't amount to anything unless you put actions behind those words.  NARAL should ask itself which Senator would vote in a way that best advances its goals.  The two most important things a Senator can do to impact the abortion debate are voting on judges and voting for a majority leader to set the agenda.  Chafee, Specter, Snowe, and Collins all failed.

        99% perspiration

        by DaveOinSF on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:06:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree overall but you made some good points (none / 0)

      The existing climate for political discussions virtually eliminates chances for a voter to detect what their representatives are actually going to do.

      I can't even gauge who's got the more uphill battle within their own parties.

      It's soundbyte land out there.

      Now that TV land has multi-language stations, maybe the SAP function can be replaced with BS detectors.

      by Peanut on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you think this is important, (4.00 / 2)

    please contact NARAL and tell them to retract their support for Chaffee.  There's still plenty of time before the election, and boy would it look bad for Chaffee to have this big endorsement taken away.

    Also, hit that recommend button so others see this :)

    John McCain - Straight talk express

    by Fran for Dean on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:33:47 PM PDT

    •  a little inside info (none / 0)

      The National NARAL organization has a brand new Director, Nancy Keenan, a former legislator from Montana I think, but she has not been involved in this issue as an activist ever.  After Kate Michelman left last year during the election, there was an interim person.

      I can say a long time veteran of the choice movement, that to endorse Lincoln Chafee, now, was a dunderheaded move. (And I say this as someone who has voted on endorsements for activist organizations, like choice groups.)

      Why?

      You don't endorse an entire 18 months before a Senate election.  It was the move of a political novice. The organization gets no leverage in exchange for their entirely too early endorsement. They gave away something valuable with nothing to hold him to.

      They should have waited until the primary process was over. Not only does it have the appearance of fairness to wait, it is fair.  
      Second, scores of things can happen in the meantime between now and the primary.  

      I don't excuse them for their poor decision; I just expalin it.  But this decision strikes me more as politically ham handed than policy driven. So don't condemn them as a single issue org, because if your interest is the issue you can not blatantly be more for one party than another.

      I am very much a Democrat but I can not just be for one party on this issue.  However I will say that not only are pro choice Republicans getting rarer and rarer, they are becoming less effective at helping us on this issue.  I think that must be confronted in the future.

      However there is another future in which party may be less important than your position on choice.

      What is that?  We get an anti Roe majority on SCOTUS.  Roe is no longer the  law of the land.  I don't think it goes back to the States for long.  If we still don't control anything by then, or even have too many anti choice Dems in the Senate like  candidate Casey, then there will be a Federal law outlawing abortion. Chaffee and Spector would vote against a Federal law, while Casey would probably vote for it

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

       

      Debra

      by debcoop on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:55:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Choice (4.00 / 2)

    Outside of a vote on a constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion, the two most important votes a Senator can make on the issue are her/his vote on Majority Leader and his/her vote on judges.

    How did Pro-Choice Lincoln Chafee do on those?  How did Pro-Life Harry Reid do on those?

    99% perspiration

    by DaveOinSF on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:00:38 PM PDT

    •  Wait... (none / 0)

      wait...

      don't tell me....

      Um - Reid did better didn't he.   Hmmmmmmm  

      Looks like it's time for us to work together with those Dems who dare call themselves "pro-life"

      that does not mean we ever give in on Roe v. Wade - it does mean we stop driving people who don't share a prefered label - and find common ground for the common good.

      and that, quite blunty, includes NARAL.  They have seriously erred on Chaffee and they need to admit it and withdrawl the endorsement.

      Join Soulforce-seeking Justice for God's GLBT children.
      Time to change the mindset - Obama 'O8!

      by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:25:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Brown is THE WORST judge (none / 0)

    Bush has gotten confirmed, and to the most important appeals court.

    And Chafee helped.

    He didn't have to, Brown got 56 votes, but he did anyway.

    So, exactly, what good is Chafee to NARAL?

    He's just one vote they don't need in the Senate to filibuster anti-choice laws or vote against the constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

    And he votes for Frist and most of the Bushite agenda.

    If NARAL spends ANY of their members' money to support this lucky-sperm-club asshole, no Democrat should ever take them seriously again.

    The Republicans want to cut YOUR Social Security benefits.

    by devtob on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:10:46 PM PDT

  •  What's to say? (none / 0)

    I have said it all before.

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:19:58 PM PDT

  •  I despise Lincoln Chafee's... (none / 0)

    politics (big surprise, huh?).

    For many years, he hid himself in comfortable anonymity and played his role as the aristocratic little rich boy while he did SQUAT for Rhode Island in the U.S. Senate.

    The exigencies of 21st century politics have exposed Chafee for what he is: an enabler. He is a lapdog for Bush, Frist and all of the running dogs of rampant capitalism.

    Everything Chafee does is being engraved in the collective memory of the working people in the State of Rhode Island. No matter how much money he spends, no matter how much support he receives from the national Republican Party, he is going to retire to the life of a country gentleman in January, 2007.

    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by jayatRI on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 05:58:44 PM PDT

Permalink | 24 comments