Pro-choice groups have battered woman syndrome
It seems that Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont (HT: MyDD via Atrios). How stupid can they be? This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted for cloture on Alito, assuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Yes, Joe eventually voted against Alito, so some pro-choice scorecards show Lieberman as a good guy. Don’t be fooled. The real vote that actually could have stopped Alito was the cloture vote. So when it actually mattered, Joe voted for Alito. This is the same Joe Lieberman who wants hospitals to be able to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. Yes, it’s true. Here’s his quote: “In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.” Anyone who says something like this should not be getting pro-choice endorsements when there’s a better candidate to support.
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:
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.
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.
Comments