NARAL-Mindedness

3 comments December 8th, 2006at 12:24pm Posted by Eli

Digby has (as usual) an excellent post on the ongoing NARAL selloutathon. He contrasts NARAL’s accommodationist, triangulating strategy with the NRA’s absolutism, which is a comparison that came to my mind in the wake of their lame excuses about not being able to account for cloture votes for the Alito nomination on their “scorecard.” Anyone think the NRA wouldn’t find a way to keep track of who voted for cloture for a zealously anti-gun Supreme Court nominee, or that any such congresscritter would be receiving any endorsements or thank-you letters(!) in the foreseeable future? Didn’t think so.

Digby focuses primarily on how NARAL is allowing the center to shift drastically to the right, but only alludes briefly and indirectly to the way they’re moving the left to the right. By giving their blessing to a pro-life definition of when life begins, and embracing the doctrine of fetal pain sensitivity (I really hope they’re wrong on that – I just automatically assume that any scientific claims coming from the far right are garbage, and I haven’t been wrong yet), they have given them the imprimatur of progressivity, allowing feckless or naive Democratic politicians to freely adopt without fear of any repercussions or stigma – after all, who wants to be to the left of NARAL on choice? Protecting choice is their whole raison d’etre, right?

And that, of course, is the problem. Any anti-choice position adopted by NARAL will not make NARAL more credible, because everyone thinks NARAL is an advocacy group for women’s choice. All it does is make that position look liberal and pro-choice, because it’s been endorsed by a liberal and pro-choice organization.

Now, with all that being said, can anyone explain to me why NARAL’s membership has not staged a revolt? I know NARAL chief Nancy Keenan is a Catholic who appears to be personally opposed to abortion (!!!), but is the membership really that oblivious to what’s being advocated in their name, or are they in on the scam? I would think that if they’re informed, committed progressives, they would have been lashing some serious back starting with NARAL’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman. Can anyone out there offer any insider perspective on this? Is NARAL just the pro-choice version of the rights-would-be-nice-but-what-we-really-want-are-tax-cuts Log Cabin Republicans?

Entry Filed under: Choice,Democrats,Favorites,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers

3 Comments

  • 1. flory  |  December 8th, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    is the membership really that oblivious to what’s being advocated in their name, or are they in on the scam? I would think that if they’re informed, committed progressives, they would have been lashing some serious back starting with NARAL’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman.

    My guess:
    NARAL’s money probably comes largely from a handful of foundations/high net worth types who only care that Keenen is at the same cocktail parties as them.
    As for the “membership”, the smaller dollar donors, 90% of them probably have no clue what Keenen is up to and just send in their $25 because they think its a good way to prove their prochoice cred.

    The way to change her behavior would be to target the big dollar donors, if you could find out who they are.

  • 2. Eli  |  December 8th, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    If they’re high rollers, then they’re probably Bloomberg/Lieberman Democrats, in which case they’re in on the scam or might as well be.

  • 3. Multi Medium » This&hellip  |  February 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    […] Again, they didn’t just vote against the non-binding resolution – they voted against even debating or taking a vote on it. Maybe they didn’t want to go on record as voting against it, since as NARAL teaches us, cloture votes don’t count. […]


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

December 2006
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *