Pro-choice groups have battered woman syndrome
If pro-choice advocacy groups endorse candidates regardless of their undermining the pro-choice agenda, is it any wonder we’re losing the reproductive rights battle even though more of the country is pro-choice than not? (Here’s a recent poll. It’s close, and depends on wording, etc., but it seems we are still in a pro-choice country.) Matt Stoller at MyDD outlines what he thinks will happen if another Supreme Court vacancy opens up:
But at the end of the day, every Senator will know that the guns on the progressive side are not loaded and they can vote against women's rights and pay no price. That's the message that NARAL and Planned Parenthood just sent. And the Republicans, if they are disciplined and on message, and if no third party force asserts itself, will win easily.Thank goodness NOW endorses Lamont. I’m glad some pro-choice advocacy group believes that a candidate should actually support pro-choice positions in order to get an endorsement.
I’ve already sent postcards to Planned Parenthood (of which I am a member) urging them to reconsider their endorsement. I hope my other readers will take similar action.
By the way, Markos has a great chapter in Crashing the Gate (see sidebar) on just this kind of idiocy. Single issue advocacy groups that could gain enormous power by being part of a progressive coalition constantly shoot themselves (and the rest of us) in the foot with these bone-headed political maneuvers. Sucking up to incumbents who then piss on your agenda is not winning politics.