NARAL's bloggy call to action

NARAL says:

With the Roberts nomination front and center, choice is being talked about more and more, especially on some of the most well-known political blogs. But what's disturbing is that choice and abortion are being discussed--in blogs and in the media--more as a political tool than as an issue that affects women's lives.

So NARAL is issuing a call to action. We've listed five of the some of the most well-known progressive blogs below--go to them and make your voice heard. Use their comments sections to make sure that choice is being discussed as something that affects women, not just politics.

The call to action includes links to Daily Kos, MyDD, Swing State Project, Atrios, and Left Coaster. Their message -- choice affects women, not just politics.

Problem is, politics can't be divorced from the issue. So NARAL goes around endorsing Republicans like Chafee because they talk a good game about choice. But then, Republicans like Chafee vote for people like Trent Lott and Bill Frist as majority leaders. And then they vote to confirm reactionary anti-privacy, anti-choice judges like Janice Brown.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion Democrats like Harry Reid don't vote for Frist or Lott, and they don't vote to confirm reactionary anti-choice judges like Janice Brown. There's no doubt Chafee will vote to confirm Roberts, regardless his record on choice, and yet NARAL would still rather endorse Chafee?

You know, nothing says they have to endorse an anti-abortion Democrat, but clearly they don't understand that good politics -- turning the Senate Democratic is far more beneficial for their issue (women rights) than anything the Republicans can muster.

Until NARAL (and the rest of the single-issue groups) understand that building a movement is more beneficial to their causes than singular devotion to their pet causes, I can't take them seriously.

Divided those groups are being picked off, one by one. Trial lawyers, you're next up. United, the Republicans stand.

The groups I take seriously? MoveOn, Democracy for America, National Political Hip Hop Conference, the bloggers -- groups that are working to build an effective progressive movement, not a single issue. Because when Democrats regain power, choice, the environment, worker's rights -- the whole gamut -- will be protected.

•  So if Lincoln Chaffe supports Roberts, will NARAL

  drop their support for Chaffe in the '06 election?  

  by LionelEHutz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:03:53 AM PDT

  •  One would wonder....and hope...

    ...That they would. But I'm not going to stake my hopes up there. I feel the same way as Kos. They're letting the issue get in the way of something much, much bigger.

    Pacific NW Portal - Regional Politics At Your Fingertips

    by MountOlympus on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:06:35 AM PDT

    •  Tin Foil Ready?

      Why is NARAL choosing this fight?

      Anybody know how their cashflow is doing? I'd suspect that, as it's become a whole lot easier for the grass roots to directly fund campaigns, that some of that cash flow has been redirected from the larger advocacy organizations. Not certain that the green-eyed monster is to blame, but following the money has often pointed the way to motive ...

      by wystler on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:14:38 PM PDT

    •  Much Bigger?

      There is no issue "much, much bigger" than abortion rights.  It's about basic respect for women, state/church separation, and our freedoms as Americans.

      by fedupnyc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:39:53 PM PDT

      •  sure there is...

        Following the constitution and the rule of law.  This administration has bent and broken so many laws it is crazy.

        If your elected leaders become despots and the military backs them then nobody's rights matter much male or female.

        by delver rootnose on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:15:51 PM PDT

        •  You Don't Get It

          Anyone who tries to undermine Roe v. Wade is violating the constitution and attacking the rule of law.

          by fedupnyc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:06:05 PM PDT

          •  Sorry I get it and I think you are wrong.

            Roe V wade is just a court ruling.  Granted all court rulings are based on the rule of law and the constitution but the republican party by ignoring well established laws are undermining the constitution.  In Roe V Wade they are just trying to change the court to one who will rule differently.

            The assualt on the constitution is much more important than any one ruling.

            By the way I generaly support roe v wade while I personally dislike abortion.

            by delver rootnose on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:15:08 PM PDT

            •  It's an ugly issue to hang our hat on

              I fully support a women's right to choose and would not force my wife, my daughter, or, in the past, my girlfriend to have an unwanted child. But I must admit that I am uncomfortable with abortion.

              I beleive that the Democratic Party is the true "culture of life" party. While the Right seems to be only interested in "pre-life", and "pre-post-life", we strive to improve the "real-life", that what's in between birth and death. Like not rushing to war, lending our country's strength to oppressed peoples, protecting human rights, opposing capital punishment...ect...ect...ect. These are the issues we should really be tagged with.

              by bleeding blue on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:56:45 PM PDT

            •  You Don't Get It At All

              Roe v Wade is about the very humanity of women.  Roe v Wade is about whether our courts will uphold and defend the constitution and the rule of law or if they will deliberately violate both in order to pander to militant fundamentalists.

              The right to choose on abortion is as basic as the rights to freedom of speech, press, and assembly.  Just because women are the only people who get pregnant doesn't make it less so.

              Anyone who who try to overturn Roe v Wade has utter contempt for everything America stands for.  It truly is the mentality of the Taliban.  Saying "Roe V wade is just a court ruling" is like saying "The Constitution is just a piece of paper."

              by fedupnyc on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:02:43 PM PDT

              •  it's hard to argue with a zealot....

                so I won't

                by delver rootnose on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:41:22 PM PDT

                •  It may be hard to argue with a zealot...

                  But it's even harder to argue with an apologist.  The issue of choice boils down to the fundamental issues of a woman's right to have agency over her own bodily autonomy.  Basic. Civil. Rights.

                  There is a reason that the rest of the world so disparages the United States for it's lack of ratification for CEDAW, as well as the stances it took in the 2002 UN conference where we tried to push a fundamentalist agenda with regards to sexuality in general, as well as women's reproductive rights.

                  And KOS, it's very hard to take you very seriously when you run around calling this issue a 'pet cause', versus a very real threat to 50% of the voting population that also happens to be a majority within the party you proclaim to support.

                  NARAL could have chosen a better option than Chaffe, sure, but that option would not have been an anti-choice Democrat, no matter how many times you want to rehash the issue.  The better course of action would have been to support a green party member if there was one, but the point was made none the less.  This isn't a 'pet cause', it's a very real issue that is not a political bargaining tool for the unaffected left.

                  by FemiMama on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 07:19:31 PM PDT

                  •  Let's try it this way.

                    FemiMama, please look at your signature.  I'll repost it here just for clarity:

                    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

                    Do you really believe that?  I very much hope you do, because it is critical to the point Kos is trying to make - not that abortion needs to be set aside as an issue, but that it is not the only issue.

                    The issue of abortion is critical, yes.  However you're missing the point Kos is trying to make.  The Right is not fighting with some people over here fighting for Roberts, and some people over there fighting for prayer in public schools, and some people way over there fighting for more "tax reform."   To slightly overgeneralize, they are fighting for everything, all at once, all the time.

                    To restate it:  There are no unimportant fights to the Religious Right.

                    Every fight that progressives lose, makes the efforts of all of us that much less effective.  Every fight where different interest groups go "that's not my fight," or "my fight is more important," we ALL lose.  Every fight that they win, makes it that much easier, establishes that much more of a precedent for their next win.

                    This is what we as a group are not understanding. That there are no unimportant fights, and that there are no "most important" causes.  To continue to hammer those who disagree with you with rhetoric is to make enemies within your own house, and alienate your own cause by revealing a lack of empathy for the issues that others hold dear.

                    Other people have other priorities, and some even choose to share them.  I would submit, however, that people who treat their causes as somehow greater than all others are doing a great disservice to everyone.  Women's reproductive rights will be fought for, make no mistake.  It's part of the ideal of progressivism (and I realize not all of y'all are progressives, but this is the viewpoint from which I can speak knowledgeably), and therefore it must be included, or we are no longer what we think we are.

                    The mental exercise of denigrating the ideals of those who do not agree with us is one which we, no matter what our focus, have much experience at being on the receiving end of.  The fact that we are handing this treatment out to others that are our philosophical kin is unsupportably wrong, and gives great comfort to those who find our ideals repugnant.  This is not about abortion, this is not about overtime, this is not about child care, this is not about the right to organize, this is not about Social Security, this is not about freedom from religious interference in Government, and vice versa.  This is about all of those things, at once.

                    Find a group that you agree with, and that is NOT a supporter of one of your pet causes.  Learn about them and their arguments, and lend them a little support.  Think about it, and discover how support for this cause supports your own, and be surprised and gratified at the results. Businesses call it cross-training.  I call it unified action.  I also call it our only chance to kick these bastards in the teeth.

                    StealthBadger.net

                    by Stealthbadger on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:55:02 PM PDT

  •  who? how to call or email?

    Who is on the NARAL committee that votes these things?

    How do we contact them?

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:08:33 AM PDT

  •  Wasn't that earlier vote...

    part of the Deal of the 14? Didn't he, as one of the Rs in the agreement, he have to vote in favor or brak the agreement?

    Brain is a little fuzzy on the remembering part of that whole deal...

    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:10:34 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      the deal required them to vote to invoke cloture, not to vote for confirmation. (Chafee did both.)  Even so, of course, it was the Dems who were giving up their filibuster in that deal (in exchange for a no-nukes pledge), not Chafee.  In any case, Chafee voted to invoke cloture for Brown back in November 2003. (That motion failed.)

      by Glenn in NYC on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:24:50 PM PDT

      •  Okay...I see <nt>

        by kredwyn on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:26:13 PM PDT

•  Choice is NOT a single issue

  And -- GET OVER -- the Chafee thing.  This is not about Chafee any more.  I am at my work computer so I dare not write more at the moment, but I am sure others can take up the cause -- or not.

  by flo58 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:05:47 AM PDT

  •  We can't wait....

    ....for you and others to "take up the cause". Even if you don't like what Kos has to say, please don't go around doling out "2" and "3" ratings just because you disagree with someone's opinion. I hate that, and I think many others do too.

    Pacific NW Portal - Regional Politics At Your Fingertips

    by MountOlympus on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:08:45 AM PDT

    •  agreed

      Some of the most disgusting flame wars on this site arise from abortion debates.

      by hotshotxi on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:12:43 AM PDT

    •  Have I given you a 1??

      Hmm... I have personally never given a 1 or a 2.  The only zero I gave was to a cretin who made some incredibly racist remarks.  I have gotten 1s and 2s, however, when talking about these issues.  They are hot issues.  Always have been, always will be.  

      by flo58 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:56:16 AM PDT

  •  No.

    Why should we "get over" the Chafee thing. It is symptomatic of NARALs failure to understand the nature of a two party system.  Until they fix that internal vision deficit, they should be bashed with the "Chafee thing" again and again.

    by Cheez Whiz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:08:48 AM PDT

    •  Since we're out of the majority

      by 6 votes, every 1 is important.  Why "get over" 1 of the possible toss-ups that we had/have a chance at taking?

      by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:10:49 AM PDT

      •  NARAL's ad is aimed at Chafee

        and Maine's two republican senators.  That is where it is supposed to air.  They are applying pressure on those Republican, nominally pro-choice senators.  How much pressure do you think Democrats can apply to them?  Answer: NONE.

        From reading dkos you would think that NARAL single-handedly elected Chafee.  Every time his name is mentioned by Kos or anyone else, there is a mile-long thread of how diabolical or self-defeating NARAL is.  Can we all just hold our tongues about NARAL long enough to take on the real task?  Namely, to out Roberts for the wingnut he is?  PLEASE!

        As for the 1s and 2s, you have never gotten them from me.  I frequently disagree with people here and especially with Kos on this issue, where I believe he has developed a blind spot.  But I am not 5 any more.  I am not going take my toys and leave the playground about this or hit you with ones or twos.

        by flo58 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:51:24 AM PDT

        •  I think you meant this

          for someone else.  I didn't/don't give out 1's or 2's.

          by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:04:30 PM PDT

          •  Sorry.

            I was having so much trouble with the response times that I put the comment all together instead of trying to make separate comments.  It was meant for someone upthread.  

            by flo58 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:07:20 PM PDT

        •  but if NARAL really wanted to

          pressure Chafee, couldn't they just pull their support?  Do they really think that Chafee is worried about his constituents realizing he's soft on helping maintain choice in America?  The guy doesn't care!

          by itsbenj on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:14:52 PM PDT

          •  If...

            it is between a pro-choice Republican and pro-life Democrat I could understand why Naral would support the pro-choice candidate.

            However, why would Naral choose a pro-choice Republican over a pro-choice Democrat when the Democratic party supports the right to choose and the republican party does not?

            It would seem to me that if all things are equal Naral should always support the Democrat - it only makes sense.

            by RichardG on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

            •  No so mysterious

              If you don't reward those who have stood with you in the past, you will convince no one else to stand with you in the future.

              by Ms. American Pie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:55:50 PM PDT

            •  That Plus

              There aren't really "Pro-Choice" Republicans in the Senate. None of the so-called pro-choice republicans would ever cross party lines if the GOP needed the votes.

              Chaffee certainly is way too spineless to buck the GOP on anything other than votes that are already in the bag.

              Given that, NARAL wouldn't gain anything by supporting the GOP candidate while even a pro-life democrat would help them because you are never going to get anti-choice legislation from a Democratically controlled congress.

              by savvyspy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:13:03 PM PDT

              •  Explain the Leon Holmes vote please

                Mitch Gore

                Wanna win in '08...?

                Put your money where your mouth is.

                by Lestatdelc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:58:04 PM PDT

                •  Holmes was confirmed with 51 votes

                  So how does that disprove the premise?

                  by Superribbie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:16:07 PM PDT

                  •  Leon Holmes

                    Leon Holmes would not have been confirmed without the support of anti-choice Dems. The vote, a little over a year ago, was 51-46. 5 Republicans voted against him, specifically Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Hutchinson and Warner.

                    Six Democrats voted for him Lincoln, Prior, Breaux, Landreiu, Miller and Ben Nelson. The fact of the matter is that anti-choice Democrats have no difficulty voting to confirm judges like Holmes.

                    So I ask again, how do you reconcile your "premise" with the facts that Chaffee is better on these issues than numerous Democrats, particularly when it comes to wing-nut judge confirmations and specific legislation?

                    The Democratic party has a long way to go to earn blanket support on issues like medical privacy, equal rights, etc.

                    Mitch Gore

                    Wanna win in '08...?

                    Put your money where your mouth is.

                    by Lestatdelc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:29:51 PM PDT

                  •  count the votes

                    Holmes was confirmed with 51 votes

                    Republican who voted against Holmes:
                    Collins
                    Snowe
                    Chafee
                    Kay Bailey Hutchinson
                    John Warner

                    Democrats who voted for that neanderthal piece of crap:
                    Lincoln
                    Prior
                    Breaux
                    Landrieu
                    Ben Nelson
                    Miller

                    Senators who were absent:
                    Kerry
                    Edwards
                    Murkowski

                    So how does that disprove the premise?

                    Do I need to explain further? the 'premise' is crap. Holmes isn't the only only misogynistic judge confirmed by the Vichy Dems. Not by a long shot. He's just a particularly good example to demonstrate that the 'trust us' spin is crap.

                    by colleen on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:09:18 PM PDT

        •  That's precisely why their effort is misplaced

          Does it matter whether Roberts is confirmed 55-45 or 52-48? He'll still rest his tush en banc. If NARAL's best solution is that they think they can force a closer loss by endorsing Chaffee, then they really need to suffer a downturn in revenue from the faithful.

          Chaffee's hired BushCo's best to run his re-election campaign. The GOP will do their damnedest to assure that he can cast a meaningless NO vote on Roberts by carefully orchestrating the rest of their Senate faction to walk in lockstep. Then Chaffee can phone his buddies at NARAL, and tell them that he really, really tried ...

          by wystler on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:22:27 PM PDT

    •  Here we go again

      The Democratic Party works to insure that the Pennsylvania senate race is between two anti-choicers by trying to manuever pro-choice Dems out of the primary.  So NARAL retaliates by endorsing a Republican in an election that will be between two pro-choicers.  Not to hard to understand.  Demanding that NARAL toe the party line makes little sense unless the Democrats stop playing around with the idea that maybe they ought to support rolling back women's rights a little just to win some elections.

      by Colorado Luis on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:12:13 AM PDT

      •  PA Dems maneuvered

        candidates out the way who had a lesser shot of winning.  Casey is the only competitor -- within the PA field, as well as in the rest of the country -- who has been polling above the incumbent the entire time.  And the incumbent is none other than Santorum!  He will be gone in 1 year, and that is a victory.

        by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:15:23 AM PDT

        •  Electability?

          Is that an issue of electability?

          Why isn't Chuck Pennachio just as good or better a candidate for Pennsylvanians than Casey?

          by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:33:41 AM PDT

          •  He may be better

            but he has a 100-1 fundraising deficit to Casey from the get-go.  I like Chuck, and am not calling for him to drop out or anything, but he has a slim-to-none chance of winning, whereas Casey has a 90% chance of winning.  Once we're in the majority, then we can start weeding out the Dem lites.

            by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:40:19 AM PDT

            •  excellent

              we'll worry about what they stand for after we've won.

              gosh, now where have i heard that strategy before...
              

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:44:00 AM PDT

              •  On this issue --

                as has been pointed out hundreds of times on this diary alone -- how they stand is irrelevant because if the Dems are in the majority, no anti-choice legislation will be brought forth and judges that are anti-choice can get filibustered.

                by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:49:49 AM PDT

                •  smart plan secret squirrel..

                  now all you have to do is guarentee that if you elect some of these bozos you actually take power.

                  otherwise, you've just made your position that much more tenious.

                  by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:53:36 AM PDT

                •  Nonsense: Hyde Amendment (1976)

                  The Hyde Amendment is one of the most important pieces of federal anti-choice legislation. It removed federal funding for abortion services. It was passed by both houses of Congress in 1976, when they were both controlled by Democrats.  Although the President who signed it into law was Gerald Ford, a Republican, his decision to do so was largely in response to pressure from Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter who supported the measure and would have made political hay out of it had Ford vetoed the measure.

                  In short, the Democratic commitment to choice has faltered in the past, and it could falter in the future.  The Senate Minority Leader is anti-choice.  Dems are pushing for anti-choice candidates in blue states.  And Democrats talk very publicly about adopting more conservative positions on issues like reproductive freedom. Then, at the drop of a hat, they attack groups like NARAL.

                  Moreover, this issue is not simply about preserving rights,  when, in practice, those rights are becoming harder and harder for women -- especially low-income women -- to excercise.  We need federal policies that positively increase access to contraception and, yes, abortion services. And, unfortunately, the Democrats simply cannot be trusted to do this without a lot of outside pressure from groups like NARAL. More power to them!

                  by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:20:40 PM PDT

                  •  Wow

                    You are talking about 30 years ago. The make up and policies of the Dems and Republicans has changed dramatically since then. There was no partisan divide on abortion in 1975. Republican were just as likely or more likely to be pro-choice than Republicans then. Gerald Ford was pro-choice. Jimmy Carter was the first President elected with the support of the religious right as a political grouping.

                    by friendofliberty on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:28:58 PM PDT

                    •  Absolutely

                      In the last 30 years, BOTH parties have moved to the right.  Now Democrats are seriously talking about abandoning their commitment to reproductive freedom. Nobody is talking about rolling back the Hyde Amendment.

                      by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:53:00 PM PDT

                  •  Well, then by all means

                    vote for pro-choice Republicans and donate to NARAL -- what can I say?  Or better yet, run for office in a red/swing state as a pro-choice Democrat against a well-funded Republican and see how far that gets you.

                    by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:18:21 PM PDT

                    •  Huh?

                      In what version of the universe are Pennsylvania and Rhode Island "red" states?

                      No one is suggesting that staunch choice advocates run in Alabama.  RI and PA ain't Ala., though.

                      by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:24:11 PM PDT

                      •  Pennsylvania

                        is a swing state.  It was won by our last 2 candidates by less than 3%.  It's liberal in Philly & Pittsburgh, conservative in between.  Hence a moderate like Specter is somewhat popular, but wingers like Santorum trail in the polls.

                        RI is definitely blue blue blue.  Unfortunately half of their Senate representation is GOP.  But the path to 51 goes through Providence, and it seemed as though Langevin had the edge.

                        by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:55:21 PM PDT

            •  Stop?

              Perhaps we should stop giving money to Casey and start giving to Chuck?

              This sounds a bit like political expedience.  Not my favorite method of doing things.

              by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:38:49 PM PDT

              •  Donate freely

                but be realistic:  In Penn it takes millions to win a Senate seat.  I think Chuck has less than $50,000 (as per a diary from last week).

                by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:47:08 PM PDT

                •  Yes, that's less than $50K

                  In his June 30, 2005 FEC filing, Pennacchio claimed $21,459 cash on hand (having raised $21,637 in the quarter), but a debt of $13,450.

                  In contrast, Casey raised $1.97M and has $1.575M on hand, Santorum raised $5.77M and has $5.655M on hand, and neither has any debt.

                  by Adam B on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM PDT

                •  "Electability" Has Momentum

                  I'm not ignoring the reality -- I'm just saying that its not immutable.

                  The "electability" meme has momemtum - hell, it brought John Kerry (for better or for worse) back from the dead.

                  by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:28:57 PM PDT

          •  Adding to AnthonySF

            He also has statewide name recognition and popularity and experience in elected office.

            by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:46:00 AM PDT

            •  In other words . . .

              . . . he's more "electable"?

              by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:43:11 PM PDT

              •  Yes, and that's not a bad thing

                There's a practical nature to campaigns, and being electable shouldn't be a downside. All of these things are excellent reasons why he is a better candidate and why it was smart of the Pennsylvania party to go with him. I hate how being practical is considered a downside by so many.

                by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:13:55 PM PDT

                •  But . .

                  but what you are saying is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I don't like Chuck Penachio because he's not "electable."

                  I didn't like Dennis Kucinich, but he said it best:  "if you vote for me, I'm electable."

                  Where is the blogsphere in getting behind him instead of an Anti-Choice democrat in a Blue state?

                  What you are really asking is "what's wrong with winning" and what I'm asking is "what's right about following a guy just becuase he's in the lead" (when you have a chance to affect the lead.

                  But, then again, there hasn't been much leadership in the Democratic party lately . . .

                  by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:20:08 PM PDT

                  •  That's not what I'm saying

                    I'm talking about logistics. There's more to a campaign then ideals. It's a statewide race in a non-presidential year. Most of the people at the ballot box have not been paying a lot of attention unless you innudate them with ads....which are hella expensive. Hence, fundraising advantages are huge. Name recognition is important as it helps get over the natural advantage of incumbancy. Experience in elected office is important because, well, I like the idea of having prior experience on a resume when I apply for a job. Also, he has volunteers who have worked for him before and know what he is about spread out over the entire state that he can recall. Popularity, people recognize his name and say, hey, I like him and I like his father, as opposed to, who the hell is that?

                    If you vote for me I am electable, but how are you going to get people to vote for you? I've worked on too many campaigns and been in too many field offices to ignore how important the basic logistics are of campaigning. Call me a snob if you want to, but it takes more to win then ideals.

                    Lastly, I hate this argument in regards to the Pennsylvania race because it's sorta like asking "When's the last time you hit your wife?" It assumes that Casey is this really crappy candidate who the only thing he has going for him is that he's "electable", and the assumption is made that the reason everyone says he's electable is because he's pro-life. So the die hard choicers get up in arms because we're saying that you have to be pro-life to be electable. When it has nothing to do with that. Casey is a popular and well-known member of a political dynasty in Pennsylvania. He is the current state treasurer, and by the way, is pretty damn good to labor. Yes, he's pro-life, but there are a myriad of other issues on which he's a great candidate, and I am not a single issue voter. And on top of that, there are all of the above logistical reasons why he is a better candidate. For all your attacks on going with a candidate because they are electable, well, why is being popular and well-funded now a sign that they're a crap candidate who should be opposed?

                    by VirginiaBelle on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:10:56 AM PDT

                  •  PA is not a blue state!!

                    I wish it were but it's purple.

                    And... Casey Jr.'s pro-life father was a very well-liked governor here.

                    by Erin on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 06:34:38 PM PDT

          •  Let's see...

            Name rec. (legacies have an advantage; see Kennedy, Bush)
            Elective office experience
            Campaign experience
            Proven massive statewide popularity (leading vote-getter in both his statewide elections)
            Strong, strong labor ties
            Western PA base (to undercut Santorum's)

            Just a few reasons off the top of my head

            by Superribbie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

            •  No Issues

              No issues listed here, so I'm assuming that you are agreeing that its an issue of "electability," no?

              by MRL on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

              •  Issues, issues

                • He's worked for after-school children's care
                  
                • Toughened sex offender registration laws
                  
                • Helped minorities & women get state contracts
                  
                • Advocates health insurance for all
                  
                • Raised nurses' pay wages

                Is that enough?

                by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:51:39 PM PDT

              •  Yes

                Although the labor support is based on a long pro-labor record.  What's wrong with "electability"?

                by Superribbie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:17:01 PM PDT

          •  Let's be realistic

            Choosing Chuck over Casey is not like hypothetically choosing Howard Dean over John Kerry....this is like choosing Al Sharpton over John Kerry. Casey is the most popular politician in Pennsylvania and has statewide campaign experience. Chuck is a college professor who has not held elected government office before. Santorum, although he is a dick who pisses the majority of Pennsylvania off, is a strong and crafty campaigner. Although Chuck would be great if he ever made it to the Senate, you all know and I know that Santorum would hand Chuck his ass on a silver platter. It would not be pretty. Chuck has good intentions but I'm afraid that he simply has too little experience and too little fundraising money to take on a heavyweight like Righteous Rick.

            Either way, settling for Casey is not a huge step down. Bob Casey is a blue-collar, populist Democrat, the kind we're trying to get more of in Washington. Yah, he's socially conservative, but he's not going to whore out to corporations and fuck over unions like the DLC. He may not be perfect for a lot of you, but he's damn good, and he can win in a socially center-right, economically center-left state like Pennsylvania. Remember, his job is to represent Pennsylvanians...he can't exactly come out as a bleeding-heart liberal on all fronts and maintain his popularity.

            by FenderT206 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:18:55 PM PDT

        •  Exactly

          This is exactly why NARAL cannot sell its soul to the Democratic Party.

          As you nicely illustrate, AnthonySF, many Dems subordinate EVERYTHING to getting folks elected with "D"s after their name.  Therefore, one should always support the candidate with the greatest chance of winning. No litmus tests other than a very broad sense of party loyalty.  

          That's fine. But if you publicly declare that you're willing to sell out any issue to win elections, don't be surprised when those who work on particular issues aren't willing to rubberstamp your partisan commitments.

          by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:25:54 PM PDT

          •  Totally missing the point

            The problem with NARAL's endorsement of Chafee is its counterproductive -- it hurts the cause of abortion rights because it adds to the Republican majority.  Even though he is pro-life, if Casey is elected, it will further the cause of abortion rights because the Democrats (who are mostly pro-choice) will be closer to the majority. Supporting Casey and not Chafee is not about just winning -- its the best way to protect abortion rights.  Supporting Casey is not in anyway a sellout.   NARAL simply can't see the forest for the trees.

            by lando on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

          •  Good analysis

            ...one should always support the candidate with the greatest chance of winning. No litmus tests other than a very broad sense of party loyalty.

            This is obviously the degenerate form of the approach kos recommends.

            I think this issue is really simple.  NARAL exists to promote reproductive rights.  Democrats exist to get elected.  Democrats' defense of reproductive rights has been increasingly erratic and inconsistent.

            In short, the theory that regaining a Democratic majority will safeguard women's health issues requires a fount of optimism I lack, along with NARAL apparently.  Especially so if those Senators and Congresspeople we help to elect, whose incumbency often guarantees a long tenure, are anti-choice to begin with.

            Here's an example of what kos' partisan prescription may get us on this issue: a 55-45 majority in the Senate for Democrats, but a 40-60 minority for women's health issues.  I'll take that over the current situation, but I don't see why NARAL should.

            by ubikkibu on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:51:47 PM PDT

          •  I'm glad you agree.

            But for the record, I don't think Casey is "selling out."  He just personally believes abortion is wrong.

            by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:18:23 PM PDT

      •  Whatever.

        Demanding that NARAL toe the party line makes little sense unless the Democrats stop playing around with the idea that maybe they ought to support rolling back women's rights a little just to win some elections.

        All anybody is demanding of NARAL is that they understand that a Democratic majority works to their advantage.

        Republicans who say they are pro-choice, but are constrained by the Republican party from actively doing anything positive for choice are worse than useless to NARAL.  Perhaps someone can write a comic book to help them understand the argument.

        by Cheez Whiz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:17:19 AM PDT

        •  Who decides?

          I think it is very rational for NARAL to look at the post-election debate among certain elements in the Democratic Party -- including a lot of conversation on blogs like this one -- and conclude that the party is ready to start embracing restrictions on reproductive freedom as a way to win elections.  Therefore, a shot across the bow in Rhode Island can be considered smart politics.  (They obviously got under Kos' skin.)  To tell them that they just don't understand what is good for them is condescending in the extreme.  

          by Colorado Luis on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

          •  Thanks for that!

            If you think NARAL has not heard the drum beat against what they did with Chafee, you are certifiable.  The only people who CAN'T hear it are in Siberia.  

            by flo58 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:00:21 PM PDT

          •  I think you're largely imagining this

            remember that Daily Kos is heavilly freeped, and every time, yes every time the subject comes up, people come around talking all kinds of nonsense to stir things up.  I have not heard one single prominent Democrat call for a relaxing or acceptance of restrictions on choice who didn't already hold that belief.  

            NARAL with this post almost deliberately seem to be trying to divide people.  Not that people aren't divided already, but telling people that "certain websites" are promoting the idea of giving up choice, and citing Atrios and Kos as examples, is disingenuous at best, and flat out false at worst.  They should know better.  Why don't they?  Kos and Atrios are NOT what NARAL should be targeting themselves against, what a fucking foolish strategy.  For CHRISTS sake there really are people who are working in a coordinated fashion to make choice basically illegel.  Stop them, don't make up some shit about bloggers and then tell people to waste their time freeping the comments.  

            by itsbenj on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:19:31 PM PDT

          •  "Slosh Slosh Slosh"

            <The Sound of a Feminist wading back in to this controversy>

            Please NARAL, and supporters, for the love of God think for two seconds.  How fucking difficult is it for NARAL to insist that it is not enough for Pro Choice Republicans like Chafee to use "happy words" like "I am Pro Choice." This is a Trojan Horse.

            What the Hell does it mean if he claims to be for choice but votes with a caucus that basically hates "Those Uppity Feminists."  

            NARAL is heading down a path that will assure it's obsolescence in the near future.  This is taking one issuism to the absurd.

            Please Langevin jump back in.  Only when Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader and Nancy Pelosi runs the house will women's choice truly enjoy protection  

            by Chilipalmer on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:46:52 PM PDT

        •  It cuts both ways

          All anybody is demanding of NARAL is that they understand that a Democratic majority works to their advantage.

          But it cuts the other way, too.  Tearing down NARAL only gives ammunition to our conservative enemies.  We need to support NARAL when they are right.  

          They were wrong to endorse Republicans, but they are right on this issue, and the progressive movement needs to be united.

          Kos talks about building a MOVEMENT, and he's right, but we don't build it by telling groups that SHOULD be a part of it to f- off.  

          by daveriegel on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:59:06 AM PDT

          •  Retract the Endorsement

            I would imagine if NARAL was interested in building a movement they could start by not endorsing the Republican Party that is trying to destroy it.

            I'm not sure we should be expected to break out the party hats when NARAL gives the GOP the hammer to pound us with.

            If you actually want to build a progressive movement then endorsing the GOP is a dealbreaker in my mind. I really don't think there's any room for that.

            I actually find it quite amazing that people here will write 10 anti-DLC rants a day but give NARAL a pass on this. I have looked pretty hard and the only DLC member that ever endorsed a member of the GOP was St Paul, MN Mayor Randy Kelly (Bush/Cheney) in 2004. Even that was the kiss of death for Kelly's political career.

            by savvyspy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:21:05 PM PDT

            •  Isn't there a critical difference?

              The DLC's job is partisan... NARAL is an issue advocacy group.  NARAL's job is not to build the Democratic party...

              I think it's amazing that some liberals will praise a Republican who comes our way on an issue--for example, there was some praise  of Specter today for asking tough questions of Roberts--but we won't give NARAL a break when they make a powerful statement against Roberts.

              I'm in a bad position because I totally agree with the criticisms Kos has made of NARAL... however I think when they are going after Roberts is a bad time to bring it up.  Coalition politics is necessary sometimes, and it means we join forces with people we don't always agree with on other issues.

              by daveriegel on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:53:35 PM PDT

            •  The silliness of comparing the DLC and NARAL

              I have looked pretty hard and the only DLC member that ever endorsed a member of the GOP was St Paul, MN Mayor Randy Kelly (Bush/Cheney) in 2004

              aside...
              Your query failed to uncover Zell Miller's membership in the DLC. Who didn't just endorse Bush in '04, he wrote a book about it and spoke at the GOP convention. And then, speaking of former mayors of St Paul, there's  former Democrat, Norm Coleman. Who is now a Republican Senator.
              I've not researched endorsements by DLC members and those two immediately sprang to mind so I hope you'll pardon me if I doubt your 'research' skills.
              

              by colleen on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 05:18:08 AM PDT

              •  Yes, but Zell Miller is crazy

                You shouldn't talk bad of crazy people. They can't help it. They're crazy.
                

                by VirginiaBelle on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:22:21 AM PDT

                •  The gentleman made a ridiculous claim.

                  Yes, but Zell Miller is crazy

                  I refuted it easily.
                  Zell Miller may well be "crazy" but he was also on the DLC's membership list untill he left office and after Zell endorsed Bush and spoke at the GOP convention.
                  And so how (to quote you) "politically stupid" is the DLC?
                  Really, don't bother replying. You disgust me.

                  by colleen on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:47:37 AM PDT

                  •  I don't think very many people will defend the DLC

                    On this thread or any other on this site.

                    Really, Colleen, what have I done to earn your outright disgust? You downrate my comments, and respond to what was really just a sorta lighthearted snark with 'You disgust me.'

                    And yet I'm pro-choice. I'm not a single-issue voter, but were I to run for office, I would be called liberal, not moderate, and would probably have Emily's List support.

                    So what I have never understood is how that is not enough. I do not throw red meat to the base. I'll admit that. I'm pragmatic, and not ashamed of that. And I think that more needs to be done to appeal to the soft-center on choice issues, which I think has not been done in quite some time. But to me, these are the practical things one does to increase the support for the pro-choice movement. So why is that so god-damned repulsive?

                    I recognize that you're not the only person who feels this way, but frankly, you're the only one who consistently down-rates my comments, so I'll ask you. And I do hope you will respond.

                    by VirginiaBelle on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:57:55 AM PDT

                    •  Leave it alone VirginiaBelle,

                      There seem to be a bunch of these types on this thread who are going around troll-rating all of us who agree with Kos on the strategy. I've gotten troll rated by a bunch of these folks for making the same kind of arguments.

                      They seem to be disinterested in the debate; leave it alone. I'll throw you some tips.

                      by mateosf on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:33:14 PM PDT

      •  Retaliation is the problem

        Why would NARAL retaliate against Democrats?  Why would NARAL be fighting that battle?  

        Do you see the wingnuts up in arms over Pirro?  

        Isn't this incredibly petty?  The problem for anyone concerned about choice, right now, is Republican hegemony.  Endorsing Chafee makes that worse, not better.  Endorsing a candidate who can beat Santorum makes that better, not worse.

        Tactics should serve the strategy.  And the strategy should serve the goal. The choice goal is not served by maximizing the number of pushpins on a US Map that stand for "pro-choice Senator."  At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, it is served by maximizing the number of Ds.

        by JayAckroyd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:22:03 PM PDT

    •  Huzzah!!!!

      That is all.

      by Chilipalmer on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:19:14 AM PDT

    •  This Is Silly

      The notion that a few bloggers on Kos know better than NARAL how to protect choice is laughable.

      by fedupnyc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:31:30 PM PDT

  •  Since we're out of the majority

    by 6 votes, every 1 is important.  Why "get over" 1 of the possible toss-ups that we had/have a chance at taking?

    (sorry, I accidentally posted this to another comment above)

    by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:11:40 AM PDT

    •  But Every Pro-Choice Vote Is Important, Too

      ...as is every anti-choice votes.

      Anti-choice Democrats do not in any way help NARAL. And this is especially true if the Dems fail to regain control of the Senate.

      by GreenSooner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

  •  Why should anyone

    get over "the Chafee thing"?  It is not a trivial "thing" to be ignored.  It was a massive error on the part of NARAL, and it hurt, rather than helped, the cause of maintaining reproductive freedom.

    Now NARAL has issued an alert accusing progressive partisan blogs of treating choice as "just politics."  This strikes me as an accusation that blogs like Daily Kos are either harming or doing little to help maintain reproductive freedoms.  I find this accusation a little more than ironic coming from an organization that just endorsed a candidate who professes to being pro-choice, but who nevertheless votes for an insane theocrat (Bill Frist) as Senate Majority Leader, and who votes to confirm rabidly anti-choice judges.

    by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:32:34 AM PDT

    •  oh really...

      please tell me how it hurt reproductive freedom.

      no i'm serious.. please tell me how endorsing a candidate who isn't up for re-election till 2006 has hurt reproductive freedom in the 2005 legislative cycle?

      this just boggles the mind.

      by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:38:25 AM PDT

      •  It boggles the mind

        to figure out how endorsing a republican hurts reproductive freedom?  I don't know how to help you on that one.

        As for whether it will hurt "in the 2005 legislative cycle", I don't think I said anything about that.

        by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:47:34 AM PDT

        •  lets see..

          endorsing pro-life democrats helps reproductive freedom..

          well, unless you elect enough of them to not really take power.. then you just have a bunch of loose cannons that end up hurting you.

          my point that endorsing someone that isn't yet up for re-election doesn't change the situation on the ground at all.  

          republicans were in power before this happened, they're in power after it happened..

          by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:04:46 PM PDT

          •  Hmmm . . .

            endorsing someone that isn't yet up for re-election doesn't change the situation on the ground at all

            Huh?  Chafee is up for re-election in 2006.  That's what NARAL endorsed him for. That what we have been talking about.

            unless you elect enough of them to not really take power.. then you just have a bunch of loose cannons that end up hurting you

            To take power in the Senate, five or six republicans must be replaced with democrats.  To replace republicans with democrats, a democrat has to run against a republican and beat the republican.  Chafee is a republican.  If a democrat runs against Chafee and beats him, we are one step closer to ending the republican majority in the Senate.

            republicans were in power before this happened, they're in power after it happened

            If the democrats regain control of the Senate, republicans will not remain in power.  For the democrats to regain control of the Senate, they need to defeat a few of the republicans.  For democrats to defeat a few of the republicans, they need to run against the republicans.

            by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:26:20 PM PDT

            •  Great analysis.

              And just to reiterate, Democrats need to defeat Republicans in an election to have a majority.

              by AnthonySF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:40:44 PM PDT

            •  understood..

              yes, he's up for re-election in 2006, not in 2005.  the endorsement may have an effect in 2006 when people outside of daily kos actually pay attention, but an endorsement 15-18 months before an election might as well be a fart in the breeze.

              my point is that the endorement by NARAL of Chafee has had almost no effect on the ground in 2005 for the issues that have been talked about.  if NARAL hadn't endorsed Chafee, Roberts would still be the nominee, First is still the Majority Leader.  NARAL did endorse Chafee and First is still the majority leader and Roberts is still the nominee.  

              Nothing has changed.  Sky isn't falling, its already fallen.  It like complaining about the walls after the ceiling has already caved in.

              Now if the endorsement came down say, 3 months before the election in 2006, then I'd say its something to get upset about.  To be frank, endorsing this far out was the stupid part on NARAL's part, not the endorsement itself.

              Also, I know what the score is concerning winning back the senate.  I just happen to give a shit about who we put in the senate in the first place. (esp. given the re-elect rate of our congresscritters)  Call me a bad dem, I just don't want to elect anybody just because they happen to have a D after their name.  Also, I'm not super confident that we will win 6 seats, so if you elect 3 pro-life dems, where does that leave you? (maybe even since you've replaced 3 pro-life repugs, maybe worse if you're replaced 3 not-so-pro-life repugs).  If you're going to plan strategically, you have to plan for the worst case as well.

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:10:44 PM PDT

              •  Huh?

                Nothing has changed.  Sky isn't falling, its already fallen.  It like complaining about the walls after the ceiling has already caved in.

                I can't imagine what these sentences have to do with anything I have written in this dairy, and I have no idea what they really mean.

                Here is what happened:

                (1) NARAL endorses a republican when there are pro-choice democrats that have declared they will run against the republican.

                (2) NARAL issues an alert accusing progressive partisan blogs of treating choice as "just politics."  

                (3) I (and others in this diary) express a sentiment that NARAL's accusation is ironic in light of their endorsement of a candidate who professes to being pro-choice, but who nevertheless votes for a insane theocrats as Senate Majority Leader.

                (4) You say folks who are angry at NARAL should shut up because the endorsment has already happened.

                Again, I ask: huh?

                by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:25:17 PM PDT

                •  bah... one more time.

                  my point has nothing to do with 2006, it has everything to do with 2005.

                  1. nobody besides you, me, daily kos and polically minded progressive people give a shit about an election in 2006 in 2005.

                  2. NARAL's endorsement of Chafee in 2006 is stupid, mostly because they've done it before the dems even have a candidate and since its 15 months out, its almost meaningless.  Because of 1.

                  3. With or without NARAL's endorsement, the ground situation as its stands today would not be different.  An endorsement for an election 15 months from now is pretty much worthless.  Which is probably why they're running ads in delaware.  Ironic that they're supporting Chafee, yes, does it really matter in the short term, no.  Frist is still majority leader, Roberts is still the nominee.  I just think you're going to have hard time getting people to swallow the "sell your rights down the river cause it will end up protecting them in the long run" argument.  people don't vote parties here they vote candidates, and getting upset over an organisation's endorsement of a candidate who may end up voting for an insane theocrat leadership over someone with a .. what 0 percent rating as far as this issues is concerned, is well, not smart, esp. when that organisation is dedicated to protecting those rights.  short sighted, you betcha.  but then again, i don't buy the "elect democrats no matter what they stand in because the people with the real power will be the "good guys"" argument either.

                  4. i'm not telling anyone to shut up, i'm just saying that people are making a lot of mountains out of a little mole hill.  that instead of browbeating NARAL, perhaps some engagement would be better suited to make the ends meet.  unless, of course, you don't think we could possibly get a pro-choice democrat elected in blue RI without the endorsement of NARAL.

                  by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:45:39 PM PDT

      •  He voted for Frist.

        by ryan b on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:50:43 AM PDT

        •  let me guess

          he wouldn't have voted for first, years ago.. had he not been endorsed by NARAL in 2005.

          got it.

          by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:02:20 PM PDT

          •  No one

            is saying the NARAL endorsement caused him to vote for Frist as majority leader.  Don't be ridiculous; Chafee voted for Frist because he is a republican.  Which is why NARAL shouldn't be endorsing republicans.  All ryan b was saying is that the vote for Frist alone should have precluded an endorsement by a group that exists to maintain reproductive freedom.

            by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:07:56 PM PDT

            •  well..

              maybe they're thinking that if they help elect enough pro-choice republicans ... ;)

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:47:23 PM PDT

              •  And maybe monkeys will fly out of my ass . . .

                You are the one who claimed upthread that Democrats can't win enough seats to retake the Senate ("Also, I'm not super confident that we will win 6 seats"), but now you are suggesting that NARAL can help replace approximately 50 anti-choice republican Senators?  Amazing.

                by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:00:08 PM PDT

        •  Reid Is Anti-Choice

          By your logic, NARAL shouldn't support pro-choice Democrats.

          by fedupnyc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:34:06 PM PDT

      •  if you can't see

        How taking one of the most vulnerable Republican seats in the Senate and giving it liberal credibility hurts the chances of gaining that seat, then you've lost me.

        Also, Naral endorsed Chafee prior to the SCOTUS nomination. Had they held out, they could've pressured him to vote one way or another....funny how they have to run ads in a state where they've endorsed the incumbant. You'll note they are not doing that in pro-life Democratic states.

        by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:51:16 AM PDT

        •  really...

          so wait..

          how exactly would NARAL have been able to pressure chaffee?  no really.  he's not up for re-election for another, what? 15 months... i'm sure a non-endorsement or a hold out this far ahead of re-election would have been a huge stick to beat him over the head with.

          and if you believe that, i've got swamp land to sell you.

          they're not running ads in pro-life dem states because they don't have any real power.  were there less repug unity on things like this, i'd put good money on ads showing up in pro-life dem states on the offchance that it might come down to a vote ..

          whether or not NARAL endorsed chafee makes no difference, the dems don't have power.   the pugs do. and they would have run ads in chefee's state no matter, endorsement or no.  

          endorsing chafee now makes almost no difference.  a non-endorsement of chafee doesn't change change the power balance in congress one iota.  

          naral endorses chafee - republicans control this congress.
          naral doesn't endorse chafee - republicans control this congress.

          pretty simple.

          by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:01:38 PM PDT

          •  That's not how politics work

            Politics don't work with a clean slate every Congress, and to get from one to another you need to get re-elected. And that takes money. Lots of money. Money that Naral is good at providing through reliable donors. Money that it takes six years to raise.

            15 months is not a long time until re-election. In fact, it's the next election. There is no buffer election between then and now. No years for people to get over their anger. And holding out would've very much made a difference. It's a blue state. Liberal credibility is essential for Chaffee to have a prayer of getting re-elected, and all that Naral is working for is coming down to one vote, and they dropped the ball. This is the Supreme Court. What have I been going to marches and organizing for all these years for women's groups if not for the Supreme Court? And you're telling me that it doesn't matter whether they used their weight against one of the swing votes? Essentially your defense of Naral is that they are an ineffective organization that will never have any relevance so what they do shouldn't matter.

            Is that really your defense? Is that the best defense they have? Your lack of understanding of campaigning aside, is that really the only argument to have?

            by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:18:14 PM PDT

            •  please..

              you're going to to tell me that anyone is paying attention to chafee's relection outside of dailykos and the respective RNCC, DNCC at this point?  

              NARAL is using its weight by running the ads in Delaware concerning Roberts.  This is far more significant than the endorsement of re-election 15 months from now.  Unless you're telling me that average blue rhode islander is already geared up for another election, just 6 months after the last one.

              Being all ignorant and stuff about elections and financing of elections, please provide to me your evidence of a huge windfall of liberal funding coming out of the NARAL endorsement of Chafee.  I'd love to see how much money he's getting because of this.. no, really, I'm interested.  I'd also love to see your evidence of how an NARAL endorsement has swayed the senator's views on the Robert's nominee or how it would have made him less likely to vote for First or any of the other bitches that people have made.  Certainly, it may have had some influence, but being a human being in the country, I have to say that the public's memory is pretty short and a year is an awfully long time, even for a moderate republican in a blue state.  

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:30:53 PM PDT

              •  So many things

                First, it is the DCCC (D triple C), or D-Trip. RNCC is correct. Secondly, both the DCCC and RNCC would not be concerned with Chaffee's race because Chafee is a Senator, not a Congressman, and his race falls under the scope of the DSCC and NRSC.

                Third, Naral is not running ads in Deleware, as both Jack Reed and Joe Biden have every intention of protecting a women's right to choose. They don't need to run ads in states with Democratic senators. They can count on Democratic senators to support them, even if personally pro-life (although neither Reed [Jack Reed, not Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader from Nevada who IS pro-life] nor Biden are, and I would not want to leave that impression). That's sorta the point. The ads are running in states where they have pro-choice Republicans who they can't count on. So they are running ads so that constituents who are overwhelmingly pro-choice will put the pressure on, as they are up for re-election soon and cannot afford a populace being unhappy with them.

                Fourth, a Supreme Court vote is not a vote on a bankruptcy bill. It does not disappear. I still remember the way my senator's voted in 1986 for Robert Bork. You better believe it will matter come next November. Votes don't go away! If you don't believe me, ask John Kerry. The "flip-flopping" thing arised out on voting against an earlier version of the same bill and then voting for an amended version that alloted more money for body armour for troops. Bet you didn't know that. But you did know that he voted against troop armour. Votes follow you. Especially big votes, and this is the biggest vote in 11 years.

                Fifth, nobody has argued Naral's endorsement has made Chafee less likely to vote for Frist. The point of all of those comments was that he still voted for Frist as a Republican which has more negative consequences for choice than a pro-life Democrat who would vote for Reid. Specifically, your party affiliation and who you caucus with matters more than your individual views as it determines who is in control and who chooses what bills make it to the floor. Under a Democrat, no legislation questioning choice would make it to the floor. Thus Naral's decision was stupid and counter-productive to their goal of protecting choice.

                Sixth, the interest groups who back you usually run ads on your behalf, allow you access to their phone lists, recruit volunteers for you among their supporters, and encourage donors to give to your campaign as a "Naral-backed candidate". Much in the same way we encourage people to give to Paul Hackett. Moreover, Naral has a well-developed direct mail system which they regurally use to endorse candidates. Naral matters with a good deal of single-issue voters. Until very recently, it mattered quite a bit with me.

                Seventh, the public remembers what you tell them to remember. What you put in your ads and talk about in your stump speeches is important. Do you think that either side will let this go? It would be dumb of them to do so.

                Eighth, I didn't say Naral had changed the senator's views. What I said is had Naral waited and made an endorsement contingent apon this vote, it could very well have made a more lasting difference. As said earlier, Chafee needs liberal cred. He needs respected organizations to say he's not a rubber-stamp Republican. Naral did that for him without receiving anything in return. Foolish, in my view.

                by VirginiaBelle on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:38:29 AM PDT

          •  That's awful pessimistic

            While a Senate takeover in '06 is not likely, it is possible:  keep all the Dem seats and pick up PA, MT, RI, TN and two of MO, OH, VA, and AZ.  However you cut it, though, the road to a Senate majority almost certainly runs through Providence.  Hence the anger at one of the most stalwart liberal groups giving aid and comfort to the electoral enemy.

            by Superribbie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:21:49 PM PDT

            •  true..

              my point is still valid and infact, i'm happy NARAL got involved.  yes, yes, it got rid of a person who was polling well.  and this gets people steamed.  i understand that, but what i don't understand is that this has somehow majorly hamstrung us.. that we no longer have a shot at RI or that it would be any less of a fight if we had Langevin in there vs any of the current crop of candidates.  we're over a year out and to be honest, nobody is paying attention to this except you, me and the 20,000 daily kos netzens.

              don't get me wrong, i want to win just as bad as the next person, but i really want to win because we're the better person, that we have better principles, not because we're marginally better.. that our shit just stinks less.

              and to be frank, anyone that runs out of a race 18 months before the election because of a non-endorsement would get crushed by the republican smear machine.  better to have them leave the race 18 months out than to get bombed in the general... or maybe i'm being simplistic.

              i'm optimistic about the senate actually.. i just would rather a few more candidates that were more protective of the rights i think everyone should enjoy (the right to make their own medical decisons being one of them).

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

              •  I'm less concerned

                about Langevin's exit than I am about NARAL giving Chafee support for his upcoming "see, I'm not a real conservative Republican.  I said I wasn't voting for Bush and hey, look, liberal groups endorsed me" campaign.

                by Superribbie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:18:17 PM PDT

            •  Scratch VA off that list

              I really don't think Warner is running, and the seat is safe without him in the race.

              by VirginiaBelle on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:24:30 AM PDT

        •  They are pressuring him.

          The ad that was discussed here yesterday is airing in his backyard.  

          by flo58 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:05:04 PM PDT

          •  Exactly

            And they shouldn't have to pressure someone whom they've endorsed. It shouldn't be an issue. If they had the faith in him to pull a slimy move like they did in the Rhode Island Dem primary and then endorse him, then he should be a sure-thing. No pressure needed. The fact that they have to run that ad says to me that they're being politically stupid.

            by VirginiaBelle on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:19:52 PM PDT

            •  where does it say that in the playbook?

              sometimes canidates need to be reminded of these things.. NARAL must know that their endorsement means jack shit 15 months before an election.  The dems in RI haven't had their primary so I don't know what slimey move you're talking about.  

              by bill in wa on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:34:47 PM PDT

              •  Primary