Sorry Pelosi, Democrats Can Be Anti-Choice If They Want... But Democratic Candidates Can't Be

Coddling anti-Choice asshole Bart Stupak, made the Affordable Care Act less defensible

You know how much I hate when people use Identity Politics for candidate selection, right? EMILY's List is the progenitor of that poison but it's spread and spread and spread since then. Yesterday I was railing a little about how the newest Identity Politics bullshit is around scientists (and fake scientists). But you name it, it's there. I'm a Korea, elect me. I'm an Indian, elect me. I'm gay, elect me. Blah, blah, blah... If the candidate isn't talking about issues, run in the other direction. But you know what's not Identity Politics? Support for abortion. That's a crucial policy that Pelosi-- much to her detriment-- is trying to undermine within the Democratic Party right now. She's wrong and she;'s not fit to lead any longer.

Shaunna Thomas is one of the co-founders of UltraViolet Action. Here's how she responded to Pelosi's deranged crap this week:

Nancy Pelosi is dead wrong if she believes that the Democratic Party should open its arms to candidates who will legislate away women’s access to safe, legal abortion. People are entitled to their own personal view, but the Democratic Party cannot and should not support and endorse candidates who seek to legislate their personal beliefs on others. Courting social conservatives by selling out women is not a winning campaign strategy, but a morally bankrupt attempt to win votes without concern for the women who desperately need Democrats in their corner to fight against Republican attempts to restrict abortion. And it’s a flawed strategy: The vast majority of people in this country support a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Make no mistake: As the Democratic leader in the House, Pelosi’s unsettling statements have the power to set the agenda for the party, and Democrats must commit themselves fully to protecting the rights of women as a non-negotiable party stance without exception. If the Democrats will not stand by women unconditionally and support their right to reproductive health care, then who will?

Ilyse Hogue is a progressive who runs NARAL. She seems to be more in touch with grassroots Democrtats than elitists like Pelosi are. This went up on her personal Facebook page yesterday:

This absolutely has to stop. Democratic leadership is sending bad messages that will lead to poor outcomes both in policy and politics. There's no excuse. Do much, much better Leader Pelosi. The only thing less excusable than winning elections on the backs of women--poor women and women of color disproportionately--is NOT winning elections and still selling them out. That's what this strategy amounts to.

Here's my full statement:

"The conversation about whether the Democratic Party has room for people who personally identify as pro-life is the wrong conversation and only plays into the hands of our political opponents. Of course the Democratic Party has room for those who identify as personally opposed to abortion. It always has and always will. However, the real question, and where we draw the line, is when candidates and elected leaders force their own ideology and religious values on their constituents and the women of this country. Legislating your own personal beliefs on women runs counter to the core democratic values of diversity, respect, dignity, and equality. Period.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates leads to bad policy outcomes that violate women's rights and endanger our economic security. It also endangers the economic security of our families, who are dependent on us as wage earners and oftentimes as primary breadwinners. It is fundamentally impossible to lift women and families out of poverty without centralizing reproductive rights and family planning.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates is also bad politics in a county where 7 in 10 Americans believe in legal access to abortion, where the majority of self-identified Republicans believe in legal access to abortion, and where a plurality of self-identified, personally 'pro-life' people believe in legal access to abortion. The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.

If anyone, at any level, believes that this election was won by Donald Trump based on his position on abortion and LGBTQ rights, we couldn't disagree more. A small minority of voters vote strictly on an anti-choice platform, and they are unlikely to join the Democratic Party anytime soon because they disagree with Democrats on most everything.

In 1984, Mario Cuomo-- who personally identified as pro-life-- gave a speech at the University of Notre Dame in which he promoted his proudly pro-choice voting record as not just vital for women, but vital for democracy. Separation of church and state is the fundamental principle that allows for our government to serve all of its people and to allow diversity to flourish. The only thing that has changed since then is that women's rights are even more under attack and now more than ever, we need party leaders to stand up for those of us most vulnerable under Donald Trump. Now more than ever, we need party leaders to stand up for those of us under attack.

Last year, both delegates for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton came together to produce the most progressive Democratic Party platform ever. That platform went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access-- it sought to expand it.

If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles.

For me, economic issues largely determine who we endorse at Blue America-- so far this year, these men and women. But before we even discuss economic issues with candidates, we want to make sure they're of sound character, solid intelligence and will never sell out communities that have been systematically and systemically disadvantaged by the Establishment, and that includes women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, gays and lesbians, the physically handicapped, etc. Once we're sure of that, it's time too move on to questions about expanding Social Security, increasing the minimum wage and revamping trade policies so that they serve the interests of American workers, not just the 1%.

Robert Reich on Money & the Left Political Establishment

Endorsement process when Clinton is endorsed (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

Money uses money to neuter Democrats and enable Republicans.

You've no doubt heard by now of the dust-up (or "dust-up," meaning the manufactured kind) over Bernie Sanders' remarks when he said, while he'd like the endorsement of all the big left organizations, he understands that establishment organizations are going to endorse the insider (my phrasing).

Here's Sanders' original statement, made on-air to Rachel Maddow (my emphasis). [Update: Includes the rest of this quote.]

Maddow: "Senator, let me ask  you another question in terms of how the campaign is going forward.

Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent, they should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there have been a series of very high profile endorsements of groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They've gone out of their way to make early endorsements for Secretary Clinton.

Just today the Human Rights Campaign announced their endorsement. Are you competing for these groups endorsements and not getting them? Or are you not trying to get them?"

Sanders: “I would love to have the endorsement of every progressive organization in America. We’re very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We’ve received the endorsement Democracy for America. These are grassroots organizations representing millions of workers.

“What we are doing in this campaign, it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we’re taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment.

“So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But, you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment. I will challenge anyone with regard to my record on LGBT issues. You know, I was one off the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights, I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record.

“But that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm going to do well, and hopefully win, not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and what we are doing well it, is rallying the grass roots of this country. ...

“So Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions, or many of the major organizations. But the reason we are doing so well ... is not from the establishment. It's from the grass roots of America.”

Nothing mean-spirited about that, but an acknowledgement that the big left organizations are also part of the prevailing "political establishment" in the Democratic Party ecosystem. (Many labor unions are in this position also, which accounts for many of their endorsements.) Note the distinction between "grassroots organizations representing millions of workers" and the "political establishment." An organization that reflects the views of its members is different from one that makes political endorsements that reflect the views of its board and leadership.

Sanders has since "walked back" those comments — in that he repeated the original assertion and said that even so, a group that runs women's health care clinics is without question a good group:

Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and other progressive groups that have endorsed Hillary Clinton are not part of the political establishment, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday, walking back comments he made earlier this week on MSNBC.

“That’s not what I meant,” Sanders told NBC News in an interview during his campaign swing through the first-in-the-nation primary state. “We’re a week out in the election, and the Clinton people will try to spin these things.”

Pressed on whether he views the groups as “establishment,” Sanders said: “No. They aren’t. They’re standing up and fighting the important fights that have to be fought.”

Sanders said he was specifically talking about the leadership of those groups and their endorsement decisions.

Again, are Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and NARAL, to name a few, establishment in the work they do? No. Are their leaders acting like and supporting the "political establishment" in their endorsements? Yes. The last sentence in the supposed walk-back is key. Note that it reiterates his main point rather than reversing it.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont

Are groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, to name just a few, part of the "political establishment"? Of course, they are, in the sense that the leaders cause their organizations to support positions and political figures which they deem advantageous to the organization's goals as organizations, whether or not those endorsements advance the goals of those they represent and/or serve. For example, consider that (national) NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorsed Joe Lieberman over Democratic candidate Ned Lamont in the election for Senate in 2006.

Now consider that a second time. That information should stop you cold. Joe Lieberman was known as "Short Ride" Lieberman for these remarks (emphasis in original):

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so.

"In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

Why did Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorse Joe Lieberman over the clearly more-pro-women's rights Democrat? "In order to advantage the organization (and perhaps its leaders) politically" is the obvious answer. Does advancing the career of Joe Lieberman better the lives of those whom PP and NARAL serve and represent? Of course not. Lieberman did all kinds of damage in the Senate, before and after 2006, including give us Samuel Alito by voting for cloture, which guaranteed his later confirmation.

None of this speaks to motives, but in cases where the interests of the members or constituents of an organization are opposite to the actions of its leaders, one is forced to ask questions. And when those contrary actions help keep in place powerful establishment political figures, no matter how deserving they are of that support, the answers suggest themselves.

Robert Reich on Money and the Left Political Establishment

Robert Reich was asked about Sanders' remarks by Chris Hayes recently, and while the video has been taken off of YouTube, we have Reich expanding on his remarks in this Facebook post (my emphasis below; note the Davos reference, which we'll return to):

Last night on Chris Hayes MSNBC show, Chris asked me if there’s a “Democratic establishment.” Of course there is. It’s comprised of current and former Wall Street executives who make massive campaign donations to Democrats (some of whom have served in the Clinton and Obama administrations and then returned to the Street); hedge-fund partners who make even larger contributions; moguls from large high-tech corporations and entertainment companies who both contribute directly and also “bundle” contributions from their friends; and major Washington lobbyists and lawyers who focus their bundling and their political activities on Democrats (half of all retired Democratic members of Congress in recent years have become Washington lobbyists).

The Democratic establishment is slightly more liberal than the Republican establishment, but their world views are not wildly dissimilar. After all, they have similar large homes in Westchester or Bethesda; they frequent the same vacation spots in the Hamptons or the Vineyard; attend many of the same charitable balls and dinners; serve on many of the same corporate and nonprofit boards; go to the same conclaves, such as Davos; travel in similar private jets; and are invited by presidents (Republican or Democratic, depending on who they’ve supported) to attend similar White House parties and receptions, and to serve on similar presidential commissions and advisory boards.

So the Democratic establishment sees the world much as the Republican establishment sees it: a system of privilege and power, to which they’re entitled because of their superior intelligence and ambition. And they view the vast and widening inequities of income, wealth, and power in America as natural and inevitable and, ultimately, just.

In the Hayes interview he was much more pointed about the effect of all this left-wing money on the organizations that take it. For some reason, all YouTube versions of that interview have been taken down, but from the transcript (again, my emphasis):

HAYES: Now, I asked Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under President Clinton, if establishment is a meaningful term within the context of the Democratic Party.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT REICH, FORMER SECRETARY OF LABOR: I think it is still clear because there are party leaders, big corporation, Wall Street. There are very wealthy individuals who kind of represent where the Democratic Party, the official Democratic Party was and to some extent still is.

HAYES: And what about these groups? I mean, the controversy over these comments, which as we noted Senator Sanders has walked back, he`s been attacked over them by Hillary Clinton, the context was Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign, which I think a lot of people feel like, well, those are progressive organizations. It`s – they`re not the establishment.

What do you think about that?

REICH: Well, they`re not really the establishment. And I can`t obviously speak for Senator Sanders or about Planned Parenthood. But what we do see, and we`ve seen for years in America, is that the establishment, that is, the big banks and the executives and the wealthy do support a lot of non-profits and make the non-profits basically walk to the tune of the establishment.

So, there`s sort of a chilling effect on non-profits and the media and a lot of other places because the establishment is so powerful. That`s where the money is.

HAYES: Yes, having been a political reporter in Washington, D.C., you know, there are a variety of groups, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Sierra Club, that are groups that do very good work, that do a lot of things that I personally believe in, that are also as a descriptive matter they`re part of what you`re going to call an establishment in Washington of the sort of center-left probably, Center for American Progress. They are part of it.

What I think is interesting is that term is so pejorative or understood to be so pejorative and there`s a real difference between how Republicans, it seems to me, think of that and how Democrats do. I don`t think Democrats feel as negatively about the Democratic Party establishment as Republicans do feel about their party`s establishment.

REICH: Well, I`m not so sure about that, Chris. I think the big problem is you have a vicious cycle of wealth and power in America that`s just gotten completely out of control and you`ve seen it in politics.

I was there in Washington in the `90s. It was pretty bad then. It`s much worse now. And that vicious cycle is you`ve got again big corporations, executives, Wall Street, very wealthy individuals in both parties who are calling the shots.

And you`ve got to just follow the money. You see it. There`s no countervailing power.

HAYES: That may be true. But the Planned Parenthood – I mean, is Planned Parenthood – it just doesn`t seem to be plausible that Planned Parenthood is part of the establishment in that sense. Or maybe you think they are.

REICH: I don`t know, and I don`t – I don`t think they are. But again, every organization, no matter who it is, just follow the money. I mean, I was just last week, I was asked to talk at a religious congregation about inequality. And just before I began, the minister who headed the congregation whispered to me and he said, don`t talk about changing the estate tax and don`t in any way attack the rich because we are dependent – you know, we`re dependent on them.

Well, this happens to me again and again and again. So, what we really need to understand here is that it`s all about power. This is where the surge is coming from for Bernie Sanders. In some ways, it`s a very different – it`s a different surge, but it`s coming out of the same sort of sense of fundamental powerlessness and anger and frustration for Donald Trump.

HAYES: But I think politically there is less juice to be squeezed out of that orange in the Democratic side. I mean, my feeling is your median Democratic voter, they`re angry at the banks or they`re not psyched about companies that outsource and things like that.

But when they think about a group like Planned Parenthood or Human Rights Campaign, when they think about even the Democratic Party writ large or elected Democratic officials, I don`t think they feel the same visceral anger toward those people, I think they generally trust them in a way Republican Party members don`t. Or maybe you think I`m wrong about that.

REICH: Well, I think – I think generally speaking. Certainly I would trust the Democrats and the Democratic establishment more than the Republican establishment. But I think you`ve got to understand, Chris, and I mean this in the sense that what has happened is so dramatic in terms of people`s feeling that the establishment – you know, the big corporations and Wall Street and the wealthy individuals even in the Democratic Party don`t really get it.

They don`t understand that they have had a huge impact on changing the rules of the game to favor themselves and hurt average working people. There`s not the same degree of resentment and anger, I don`t think, but there is a deep desire to change the power structure. That`s what this is all about.

HAYES: All right. Robert Reich, thank you very much.

REICH: Thanks, Chris.

Reich: "Every organization, no matter who it is, just follow the money." Let's consider one such organization.

Why Did Human Rights Campaign Also Endorse Clinton So Early?

Consider the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign (HRC). They have also endorsed Clinton. Here's activist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile, writing at Huffington Post, on that decision:

This week the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest LGBT group, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It was a bit of a shocker not because HRC endorsed a Democrat -- the group has only endorsed Democratic presidential candidates, as the GOP has always been hostile toward LGBT rights -- but that it occurred before even one vote has been cast in the Democratic primaries and while two hugely gay-supportive candidates are so close in the polls in the first contests.

In 2008, HRC endorsed Barack Obama, but not until June, when it was clear he would be the nominee. (For 2012, the group endorsed the president, who had no major challenger, in May of 2011). In 2004, HRC also endorsed the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, in June, after all the votes in the primaries were in. And it's very first endorsement of a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, came in June of 1992....

But here we are less than two weeks from Iowa, and Senator Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, looking like he will take one or both. He has many LGBT donors and supporters, many of whom are HRC contributors who are, judging from Twitter, bewildered and angry. As I wrote last fall, Sanders has a stellar gay rights record, having been one of only a small handful of federal legislators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (when he was in the House), and he's been out front in this campaign. ...

As I've also written, Hillary Clinton has responded to criticism by some LGBT donors and activists who were frustrated by what they saw as slowness on her part to publicly speak to the issues, and in recent months she released a robust, far-reaching and more detailed plan to foster LGBT equality. That's a great thing. And it's not unfair to suggest that Sanders' presence and his record had some effect.

So why didn't the largest LGBT group keep it going?

The key question, of course. Why did the largest LGBT group endorse so early and preëmptively. Signorile's answer (my emphasis):

The only answer to that question has to do with access to the White House, and perhaps what the Clinton campaign may have said to HRC, and to Planned Parenthood, the Brady Campaign on Gun Violence and other groups that have endorsed early, about the kind of access they might get -- and what they might not get if they didn't endorse now. (Let's also not forget that Chad Griffin, HRC's president, worked in Bill Clinton's administration, and raised much money as a bundler for Obama's and Clinton's campaigns.) And it is a campaign that needs those endorsements now, calling in its chips, as Bernie Sanders and his insurgency has taken the Clintonites by surprise. What seems like an early burst of enthusiasm from a group that hasn't ever endorsed any seriously contested presidential candidate before any votes took place may actually be an indication of the fear and loathing inside the Clinton campaign.

Shorter Signorile — they did it to get "access," to avoid being denied access, and because its leadership is interconnected with the Clinton administration and fund-raising infrastructure. Plus the Clinton campaign needed that endorsement now.

What does that access mean, not just for the organization, but its leaders? More on Chad Griffin, HRC's president, from this Washington Blade piece by White House reporter Chris Johnson (my emphasis):

Sen. Bernard Sanders retracted his comments about the Human Rights Campaign days after he made them, but labeling the nation’s leading LGBT advocacy group as part of the “establishment” last week struck a chord with some LGBT critics.

Some said Sanders was correct in labeling as “establishment” the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT group known for black-tie fundraising dinners, lauding corporations with pro-LGBT records in its Corporate Equality Index, close ties to Democratic Party leaders and support for Republicans who back LGBT rights (even when their Democratic opponents are stronger on LGBT issues).

The day after Sanders made the comments, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum where Vice President Joseph Biden spoke in support of international LGBT rights.

Andrew Miller, a member of the New York-based grassroots group Queer Nation, said Sanders’ comments were accurate.

“I’m surprised Chad Griffin wasn’t flattered that Bernie Sanders labeled HRC ‘part of the political establishment,'” Miller said. “Griffin, who has just returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, certainly runs the organization as if that’s what they aspire to. It’s gratifying that at least one American politician understood — at least for a moment — that HRC represents the 1 percent, not the majority of the LGBT community nor the values of LGBT Americans.”

Reich: They "go to the same conclaves, such as Davos; travel in similar private jets..." How is an organization like HRC, at the leadership level, not the "left establishment" in the same sense that the owner of the private jet that ferries them around is also "left establishment"?

In that light, consider HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. About the timing, as Signorile indicates, one could easily see her getting that endorsement because now is when she needs it, when she's in trouble in Iowa.

Now consider who is most revealed by endorsements like these — Clinton, Sanders or groups like HRC and their leaders?

The Great Unmasking

I'll expand on this later, but there's a bigger story here. This primary election is the "emperor's new clothes" election. Bernie Sanders is telling the truth, finally, and people are saying, yes, I agree. Then they're watching their leaders, their progressive and "progressive" leaders, sort themselves into two camps — Sanders' camp and the emperor's camp.

Those leaders can say, "No, the emperor is perfectly well dressed. Now let's just get on with business as usual. 'Cause Republicans...." Or they can say, with Sanders, "Yes, I see that too." The election is not calling out the left electorate. It's calling out the left electorate's professed leaders, sorting them into groups for us. In that sense, this election is performing quite a service.

It's as though one day everyone in town assembled in the town square, and all of the nobles and town officials took the stage as a group and threw off their masks. What a sight for the townspeople. Masks flying into the air like birds from a tree.

And another sight, the sudden revelation of who's really who. On the one hand, those for whom the mask is identical to the face —  the Keith Ellisons of the world — those who've been working for the town, in other words. On the other hand, those for whom the mask is very different from the face — the Chad Griffins of the world, if Signorile is to be believed — those who've been pretending, but really working for themselves, their careers, their enrichment all along. And those who've been trying to straddle both worlds, with only a mask to hide their failure to do so.

This is turning into an amazing election, the most interesting in my lifetime. Also the most consequential, as I tried to indicate here. Isaiah Poole and I discussed this election and more on a recent Virtually Speaking Sundays discussion. Tune in and listen if you like.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP

Scott Walker Disputes Ronald Reagan's Admonitions Against Starting A GOP War Against Women

Now that the Republican primary is over, Scott Brown is trying to present himself to New Hampshire voters as more moderate and more mainstream than his record shows he is— particularly on issues important to women voters (and to men who like and respect women). Brown has been lying, claiming he has always supported women having the ability to get contraception easily. He recently said he has supported that "since I was 18 years old." In light of his anti-women voting record from he was a senator from Massachusetts, Politifact rates Brown’s claims “mostly false.” And even a far more radical right-wing Republican, Wisconsin Governor Rick Scott, has tried to close the gaping gender gap by making the absurd claim— in an ad no less— that he’s stayed out of women’s health care decisions. The ad from NARAL Pro-Choice at the bottom, which will start running in the Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay and LaCrosse/Eau Claire media markets tomorrow is the response to his dishonesty.

The most current polling shows his neck and neck with Democrat Mary Burke, Burke leading by one point. Among women, Burke leads by 10 points. Most Wisconsin women know how toxic Walker’s agenda has been for them and for their families. In Elizabeth Warren’s words, “No governor has done more to hurt working families than Scott Walker. He started by gutting Wisconsin's labor unions— the very organizations that built America's middle class and that would fight back hardest against his radical agenda. When he succeeded, he cut $800 million from the state's education budget, starving schools and laying off teachers. Then he rejected federal funding under the Affordable Care Act, leaving tens of thousands of people shut out of the health care system…This week, I'm headed to Wisconsin to endorse Mary Burke, the smart, tough, and experienced Democratic nominee for Governor of Wisconsin.” She continued: 

For a long time, the political pundits said Scott Walker couldn't be beat. There has been plenty of money flowing in from powerful interests, and they said it would be just too much to overcome— don't even try.

What did Mary take from that? That she needed to fight hard and build one of the best grassroots teams in the country to go door to door, person to person, to talk about why this campaign is so important for Wisconsin families.

That's what she did, and here's what she found: the people of Wisconsin were ready to fight back, too. Now the race is officially a tossup. In every single poll conducted in September, Scott Walker and Mary Burke were virtually tied.

And there's one more issue Mary has taken on: she is not afraid to talk about how Scott Walker's record shows he's just another Republican acting like it's 1954, not 2014.

This is a governor who defunded Planned Parenthood, repealed equal-pay-for-equal-work laws, and even removed the requirement for public schools to teach comprehensive sex ed.

And since we're talking about Wisconsin, let's listen to a few words from the most influential thinker and spokesperson of American conservatism in our lifetimes, Paul Ryan's patron saint:



Being anti-Choice— and generally anti-women— has long been a marker go belonging to the right-wing tribe. It’s sometimes been a difficult one for the Greed and Selfishness wing of the Republican Party to deal with. Many conservatives who don’t care about anything but evading taxes are confused by the Republican Party’s relentless war on women by fanatics like Walker. In his new book, The Invisible Bridge, Rick Perlstein looked at the verbal gymnastics Ronald Reagan had to perform to keep from alienating the crazed anti-Choice fanatics in his party.

In 1967, while governor of California, Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in the country. He defended it, in a very different way than Ayn Rand would, by claiming that “[i]n our Judeo-Christian religion, we recognize the right to take life in defense of our own. Therefore an abortion is justified when it is done in self-defense. My belief is that a woman has the right to protect her own life and health against even her own unborn child. I believe also that just as she has the right to defend herself against rape she should not be made to bear a child resulting from the violation of her person and therefore abortion is an act of self-defense.”

Scott Walker and the rest of the kook on the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party find Reagan’s ideas on this abhorrent and would drum him out of their tribe party today as a RINO.

Obama's Big Misstep With Michael Boggs

Can NARAL save America from Michael Boggs?

Shenna Bellows is a brilliant, independent-minded and dedicated progressive running for the Maine Senate seat current occupied by Susan Collins ®. This morning we were talking about President Obama's shocking nomination of a right-wing ideologue from Georgia to the federal bench, Michael Boggs. I can't imagine Bellows ever voting to confirm someone like Boggs, regardless of what president-- and from which party-- nominates him. "Effective coalition building," she told me, "should never mean compromising our most important values. Too often, bipartisanship has meant capitulation on women's rights and civil rights to the most extreme right-wing elements of the Republican party, and that's exactly what has happened with the Boggs nomination. When it comes to lifetime appointments to the judiciary, I will never waiver in standing up for the constitutional freedoms of all Americans."

Our friends at NARAL alerted us to the problem last week and Jennifer Bendery broke it open nationally for HuffPo yesterday. Obama isn't scoring any points with women's rights groups, civil rights leaders, progressive organizations or even independent-minded Members of Congress with his nomination of Boggs, a former radical right state legislator, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. NARAL has alerted this members and allies that Boggs voted to "channel funds to anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers and make a parental consent law even more extreme… We’re disappointed that pro-choice President Obama nominated someone who doesn’t share our pro-choice values. We agree with the president on a lot of things, but not this pick. Speak out now and call on your senators to oppose a nominee who can’t be trusted with our rights."

Boggs has already come under fire from civil rights icons Joseph Lowery and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)-- both of whom were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Obama-- for a vote Boggs took in opposition to removing the Confederate insignia from Georgia's flag. They teamed up with Georgia's Democratic congressional lawmakers in December to urge Obama to rescind Boggs' nomination and start the process over.

Lowery, for one, was so baffled by the president's choice that he said it must have been a staff error. "I think [Obama] must have left it to somebody else," Lowery told HuffPost last month. "It was a mistake."

As if that isn't enough pushback from his base, Obama may also have to contend with anger from LGBT rights groups over Boggs' past vote against same-sex marriage.

"There's no question that he has a number of very troublesome positions," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "We are closely examining his record. Typically, we don't develop a position until after there's a hearing."

…Boggs appears so out-of-step with Obama's past nominees because he is part of an all-or-nothing package of six judicial nominees agreed to by the president and Georgia's two Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, months ago. Obama made some pretty big concessions: Four of the six nominees are GOP picks, and just one of the six is African American -- a lack of diversity that Georgia Democrats argue doesn't reflect the population those judges will oversee.

DFA is one of several progressive groups generally supportive of Obama's nominees that is balking at this one. Spokesman Neil Sroka: "It's downright appalling that the Obama administration would give in to right-wing obstruction and nominate ... an anti-choice, anti-equality candidate for the federal bench. Putting forward a right-wing candidate that would make George W. Bush think twice for a lifetime judicial appointment isn't horse-trading; it's caving on core progressive values, period… We'll most likely be supportive of opposition efforts in any way we can."

Boggs, currently a member of the Georgia Court of Appeals, can be accurately described as an anti-choice fanatic who worked diligently to take away the rights of women to make their own reproductive health decisions, even when pregnancies were the result of rape and/or incest. The fact that he's also a racist and a virulent homophobe makes him an odd choice for Democrats… or does it?

Just look at the candidates the DCCC has recruited too run for Congress. Steve Israel, steeped in personal corruption and an "ex"-Blue Dog from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, has gone out of his way to find and fund conservative candidates and disadvantage progressives at every opportunity. We've written many times about anti-Choice, fake Democrats that the DCCC is funding, Jerry Cannon (MI) and Jennifer Garrison (OH) being two of the worst. Back in 2009, when Garrison was trying to win the Democratic nomination for Ohio Secretary of State, NARAL help defeat her with this e-mail:

Last week, Jennifer Garrison, a Democrat from Marietta, officially entered the race for Ohio’s Secretary of State. Jennifer Garrison currently serves in the Ohio House of Representatives and has a 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

Rep. Garrison showed just how extreme her anti-choice position is when she filled out the 2008 candidate questionnaire for Ohio Right to Life, saying she would:

• support legislation in Ohio to outlaw abortion (with only an exception to save a woman’s life),

• support legislation that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, and

• support state funding for so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” that lie to women about the risks of abortion and never refer patients for abortion or birth control services.

Representative Garrison does not share our values.

Someone who does is a lifelong progressive Democrat, Marianne Williamson, who seems to have decided the "progressive" was more important to her than the "Democrat." She reregistered as an independent and is running for Congress in the seat Henry Waxman is giving up (CA-33-- Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Venice, Redondo Beach, Calabasas). She pointed to Boggs' nomination as exactly the kind of DC deal-making that has confirmed her decision to run as an independent in the same way Bernie Sanders has. "It's imperative," she told me this morning, "that our reproductive rights be protected, and  I'm very disappointed that the President would choose to nominate a judge who does not honor a woman's right to choose. While the President has stated repeatedly that he honors Roe v. Wade, clearly the back room wrangling and deal-making in Washington led him to nominate an anti-choice candidate. I look forward to being an independent Congresswoman who has only my constituents, and not party bosses, to contend with in deciding my votes."

In another context entirely, Marianne Williamson released a statement about women's involvement in politics. I thought it belonged in this post. I certainly points out the difference between progressive values-driven women like herself and careerist shills like Garrison. Marianne: "We need to move beyond a conversation that simply focuses on getting more women into office, or even getting more women voting. We need to be stressing what true feminine values would mean in a political context, and what extraordinary power the women of America could be wielding on behalf of our society."

Why Should Any Real Democrat Give Steve Israel DCCC Dues? His Agenda Is Antithetical To Real Democrats

Jennifer Garrison-- does she look sort of like Erin Zeigler?

Steve Israel, an ex-p.r. flack (and Blue Dog), who Steny Hoyer forced Nancy Pelosi to appoint DCCC Chairman, got an idea. One of Israel's Long Island neighbors, a constituent and on the board of the synagogue Israel attended, wrote this on his blog a few months ago:

My "Representative" Steve Israel is more than someone with whom I disagree with politically. He is a man with the moral fiber to stiff a Synagogue out of thousands of dollars when he decided to move (a debt that was eventually paid by an anonymous donor when a member of the Synagogue's board threatened to release the info to the press-- yes that was me).

The "anonymous donor," basically gave a hefty bribe to Israel-- a tax-deductible one-- by paying off his debt. It's so illegal and unethical! But that's a story for another day. I only brought it up because of the idea it put in Israel's head. When the synagogue's board of directors threatened to take their complaints to the press, he surrendered. He has been threatening to beat up on Democrats in Congress who haven't paid their DCCC dues by going to the press. Most Members are laughing at him.

I think they should go one further. Members serious about core values-- like women's Choice or LGBT equality-- should give Israel an ultimatum: if he keeps recruiting anti-Choice and antigay candidates like Jennifer Garrison in Ohio, Jerry Cannon in Michigan and the Mystery Meat garbage candidates who refuse to take any positions for the voters, then no more dues.

One Member told me recently that he's getting pushback from LGBT donors because of Israel's prioritization of Jennifer Garrison. "Sophisticated donors know about her disgraceful record," he told me, "and they don't want to give any money that they fear could go to elect her. I don't blame them. Would Israel back an anti-Semite? I don't think so." Here's Garrison's record. This is the trash Steve Israel wants you to send the DCCC money for:

Garrison beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 to win a state house seat from Southeast Ohio, by ATTACKING HER GOP OPPONENT FOR BEING TOO PRO-GAY. Yes, you read that right. From the Gay People's Chronicle:

Garrison already has a rocky relationship with the LGBT community. She won her House seat by gay-baiting her predecessor, Nancy Hollister, in 2004.

Earlier that year, Hollister was the only Republican to vote against the so-called “defense of marriage act.” It was considered a courageous vote.

Garrison sent out mailings that read, “If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there’s something you should know about Nancy Hollister.”

The other side of the card said, “DOMA was enacted precisely to protect Ohioans from having to accept ‘marriages’ or ‘unions’ entered into in other states. Despite the value of DOMA, Nancy Hollister voted against it. Jennifer Garrison believes marriage is between one man and one woman and will fight to protect our values.”

In 2006, as a member of the House Education Committee, Garrison helped to kill an amendment that would have required Ohio schools to protect students from bullying for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The anti-bullying bill passed without the LGBT protections.

An attorney, Garrison opposed EHEA last year, saying it is wrong to single out classes of people for protection. This is a common talking point that anti-gays use against equality laws, and is legally flawed.

From the Akron Beacon Journal (November 11, 2004):

Garrison turned the Hollister vote [against the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act] into something seemingly sinister. She told the Parkersburg (W.Va.) newspapers that ‘the big difference between Nancy and I is the gay marriage issue. I am against it. She is for it.’ Garrison sent mailings into homes that read: ‘If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there is something you should know about Nancy Hollister.’ The mailing then all but declares that Hollister embraces gay marriage, concluding Garrison will ‘fight to protect our values.’ Karl Rove would be proud. Clearly, Garrison rode the wave of state Issue 1. She and her pals should be ashamed.”

But not only content to have the LGBT community exist as second-class citizens, Jennifer Garrison also wants her own gender to subist that way. From a NARAL email yesterday:

Last week, Jennifer Garrison, a Democrat from Marietta, officially entered the race for Ohio’s Secretary of State. Jennifer Garrison currently serves in the Ohio House of Representatives and has a 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

Rep. Garrison showed just how extreme her anti-choice position is when she filled out the 2008 candidate questionnaire for Ohio Right to Life, saying she would:

* support legislation in Ohio to outlaw abortion (with only an exception to save a woman’s life),

* support legislation that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, and

* support state funding for so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” that lie to women about the risks of abortion and never refer patients for abortion or birth control services.

Representative Garrison does not share our values.

UPDATE: GOOD NEWS COMING NEXT WEEK

Steve Israel's conservative pal Garrison gets a primary challenge from a genuine fighting progressive. Stay tuned. This will be a good one.

Harold Ford Starts His Campaign With A Long List Of Easily Refutable Lies

Lieberman-like conservative Harold Ford

How long will Democratic campaign operative Joe Trippi be able to ride on the goodwill progressives feel for Howard Dean's? He starts his boneheaded post on why New Yorkers need a Harold Ford candidacy with "As the campaign manager for Howard Dean..." Give me a break!

He says he thinks "it's important to have independent voices in the Democratic Party," which means Harold Ford should run. In what way is one of the worst corporate shills and Wall Street patsies in the Democratic Party "an independent voice?" Jonathan Tasini, who is also running for that Senate seat, is an independent voice. Harold Ford, president of the DLC, is a Republican voice in the Democratic Party.

"Primaries," posits Trippi, "allow for real debate about issues, new solutions and new ideas, and they allow for the challenging of stale thinking that often takes hold in a party’s establishment." I agree 100%. But what does that have, by any stretch of the imagination with Harold Ford? Even where he has been at odds with the Democratic establishment-- he's anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war, pro-torture and generally adamantly opposed to efforts that favor working families over our corporate overlords-- he's trying to curry favor with New York State Democrats by noisily doing about-faces on all those issues. His old positions were all well and good for Tennessee, where those attitudes get quite a bit of truck, but in New York... Ford has been busy re-writing history to paint himself as pro-choice and pro-gay. Unfortunately for him, his career long voting record is widely available.

Harold Ford is an independent voice in the Democratic Party the same way-- the exact same way-- Joe Lieberman is an independent voice in the Democratic Party: no way at all. If Harold Ford was white, he would have left the Democratic Party along with the rest of the reactionary Democrats who joined the GOP in the last few decades. He didn't have that option. His OpEd in yesterday's NY Post is filled with delusion. He claims people are falsifying his record. Here's his record, and here and here or is the congressional record false?

"New Yorkers deserve a free election," he asserts oh so boldly. No wonder Tennessee is so happy to not have to worry about this weasel ever coming back to plague them again!

I am pro-choice-- have always been since I entered politics almost 15 years ago. My cumulative grade with NARAL during 10 years in Congress was right at 80 percent. Any assertions to the contrary are false.

Ford has always been known as a liar. He's still a liar. NARAL doesn't even issue cumulative voting record scores. And yesterday they took issue with Ford's bullshit; Nancy Keenan, their president:

"Former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. today claimed that he is pro-choice and has a cumulative record of voting with NARAL Pro-Choice America 80 percent of the time during his tenure in Congress. NARAL Pro-Choice America tracks every choice-related vote in Congress, but we don't issue cumulative percentages of lawmakers' voting records. What's clear is that Mr. Ford did not have a consistently pro-choice record during his decade in Congress. On some of the most difficult reproductive-rights issues, such as the Bush Federal Abortion Ban and the anti-choice Child Custody Protection Act, Rep. Ford cast anti-choice votes.

"In March 2009, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for election to U.S. Senate in 2010.  As a member of the House and now a member of the Senate, Sen. Gillibrand has compiled a fully pro-choice voting record. We are proud to support Sen. Gillibrand's campaign and will continue to do so regardless of who considers a primary challenge to her."

Media Matters also noticed a pattern of false assertions littering Ford's pathetically deceptive OpEd-- and, as they routinely do, rebutted lie after lie, primarily by quoting Ford. For example: "No, No. I was not pro-choice at one time, we don't have votes like that in the Congress... I'm pro-life, I'm pro-life Tucker. So I mean, I don't run from that." He sure is now. We'll let you know as soon as Trippi is officially on the payroll. Meanwhile Ford is building his brand all over the media, even beyond the confines of his boosters at Morning Joe. His NY Times interview last night seemed, if only inadvertently, to emphasize that he is as far from being "one of us" as if he was from Saturn instead of Tennessee. The vice chairman of Merrill Lynch/Bank of America lives in a very different NY than the one I was born and raised in.

On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.

Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner. “The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island,” he said, adding that “I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes.”

Asked about his baseball loyalties, he responded: “I am a Yankees fan,” and added that he had yet to visit Citi Field, the home of the Mets.

He has breakfast most mornings at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, and he receives regular pedicures. (He described them as treatment for a foot condition.)

Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don’t.”

What risk did he take that merits the kind of excessive salary he's getting from Merrill Lynch, which clearly hopes he'll follow Rahm Emanuel's footsteps into power where he can serve their interests? I guess the helicopter rides over the other 4 boroughs could be a risk-- or maybe the pedicures could result in an infection. Blecchhh. Kirsten Gillibrand is looking better by the minute.

Let me finish this discussion by quoting a couple of relevent paragraphs from Glenn Hurowitz's excellent book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party about why Ford is viewed-- even by other ConservaDems-- as a complete and toxic loser. The short version: inauthentic, then, now, always.

In a December 15, 2006 article, the cognitive scientist George Lakoff, famous for his groundbreaking works Don’t Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics, analyzed how Democrats could win in the south. He compared the loss of Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr. to the surprise win of North Carolina congressman Heath Shuler, who ousted long-time arch-conservative Charles Taylor. Lakoff notes that while both Ford and Shuler were anti-choice, anti gay marriage, and anti-gun control, they presented themselves in very different ways. Lakoff cites an NPR interview in which reporter Melissa Block asked Shuler if his conservative positions on social issues would “fit in” with the Democratic Party. “It isn't about, necessarily, the social issues,” Shuler replied. “It's about protecting American families and American jobs, making sure that we increase the minimum wage and that we do things that encompass the entire nation and that will bring our nation together… [making] sure that we protect our country, and our God’s great creation, be good stewards of the land, and start providing health care that everyone can afford.” Shuler’s response deemphasized those issues on which he was more conservative and instead emphasized the progressive agenda that helped get him elected. And he stuck to that once he started casting votes-- sticking with his party on 92 percent of party loyalty votes; lower than average, but still quite high).

Ford, in contrast, tried to win by convincing voters that he was the more conservative option, basing his platform on conservative issues and a conservative framework. “He ran enthusiastically using conservative code words,” Lakoff writes. "Personal responsibility, strong moral values, character education, pro-family, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, eliminate abortion, and so on. He was trying to convince good ‘ol boy Tennesseans that he was one of them… he didn’t come across as authentic, and authenticity is the name of the game.”

Ford played the “Who’s more conservative?” game-- not surprisingly, the real conservative Republican won. Meanwhile other red staters (like Montana’s Jon Tester) were able to take advantage of the anti-Republican climate by running on a progressive agenda and emphasize their differences with Bush and the Republicans. So while Tester beat a heavily-financed incumbent in a state more Republican than Tennessee, Ford couldn’t do it even though his race was an open seat. 

Despite Ford’s disastrous strategy and defeat, James Carville actually spearheaded a campaign to make him DNC chair and replace Howard Dean (who had been largely responsible for the 50 state strategy of distributing resources around the country that helped relative dark horses like Shuler and Tester to win), where he could bring his losing politics to the nation. Fortunately, the Democrats actually in charge of electing the DNC chief decided they didn’t want a loser to replace a winner, and kept Dean on. But the Democratic Leadership Council had no such compunctions about hiring a loser. And so on January 25, 2007 the DLC named the Ford to be its head. It was a perfect match between an organization that had brought a failing strategy to the Democratic Party and a man who had ridden their failing strategy to actual defeat-- and apparently hadn’t learned his lesson.

Planned Parenthood Goes To Maine-- Dumps Bush Rubber Stamp Susan Collins

I was furious the other day when I read that the Sierra Club had declined to endorse Darcy Burner (D-WA) in what is arguably the most important congressional race in the country. It made me think back to Markos' first book, Crashing the Gates and how he chastised single-issue advocacy groups playing politics (badly) by bending over backwards to appear bipartisan, damaging any semblance of a progressive coalition in the process. In the past we have attacked boneheaded moves by HRC and NARAL when they've endorsed Republicans whose only quality was that they were not quite as bad as your garden variety, drooling fascist GOP member of Congress. HRC, an out-of-touch, Inside-the-Beltway gay civil rights organization, for example, endorsed Susan Collin's mediocre record on gay issues while ignoring Tom Allen's 100% record. Their callous political calculations-- that if Allen won he'd be pro-gay anyway and that if Collins won she'd "owe" them, are just plain putrid and it's typical of these one-issue, puffed-up Insider orgs in Washington.

Today the opposite happened, thanks to some foresight from Planned Parenthood. Collins Watch broke the story in Maine.

In a precedent-setting move with national ramifications, Planned Parenthood has broken decisively with Sen. Collins, and will endorse Rep. Allen's bid to unseat her.

The decision to intervene in the race--coming from the nation's most important and respected pro-choice organization--sounds an urgent warning to pro-choice Collins supporters, admonishing them to take another look at the junior senator's record.

And because Planned Parenthood backed Collins in 2002 (and frequently endorses Republicans) its support for Allen represents a serious, nonpartisan challenge to Collins' carefully-cultivated "moderate" image.

It's the first time Planned Parenthood has backed the challenger to a senator it had previously endorsed. It also seems to be the first time Planned Parenthood has backed a Senate challenger over an incumbent who identifies as pro-choice. And It also serves as an example to other so-called "progressive" groups, showing that it's possible to avoid reflexively fluffing those in power. It still irks actual progressives that NARAL endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont-- and Lincoln Chafee over Sheldon Whitehouse. There have been rumors all year, in fact, that the undependable NARAL would even, despite her overwhelmingly rubber stamp posture and intense support for McCain, endorse Collins this year. In light of Planned Parenthood's courageous decision, NARAL might be more hesitant to make such a move. Instead they should remember that Collins:

-voted for the confirmation of anti-Choice radical Sammy Alito to the Supreme Court.
-voted for nearly all of President Bush's lower court judicial nominees, including right-wing activist appointees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown.
-voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a law that pro-choice groups saw as a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.
-has remained silent about the Bush administration's recently proposed DHHS rule, which grants health care providers wide latitude to deny services to women on a case by case basis.

So... today we congratulate Panned Parenthood for doing the right thing. This is probably a good time to remind everyone that Tom Allen's race to win the Maine Senate seat is tightening and that Tom needs help from grassroots donors. You can do that here at our Blue America ActBlue page.

From Planned Parenthood:

The national Planned Parenthood (PPAF) Action Fund board unanimously voted to endorse Congressman Tom Allen in his bid to unseat Senator Susan Collins.

...We need a leader who will represent the interests of the thousands of Mainers served by Planned Parenthood...We need someone in the Senate who understands prevention and who will support quality, affordable health care...Planned Parenthood wholeheartedly agrees that Tom Allen is that leader."

...[Allen's] record proves he will support and protect a woman's right to make personal childbearing decisions...This election is absolutely pivotal for our organization and the people who count on us. We look forward to doing whatever we can to ensure the people of this state know who they can trust to protect their rights, protect our courts, and protect the health and safety of all Mainers."

DONATING TO NARAL IS NOT GOING TO HELP PROTECT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOICE. IN FACT, IT COULD UNDERMINE IT!

Today at high noon Jane declared war... on behalf of every progressive in America. And the enemy: NARAL.

And what did they do with all that cash? They sat on it and didn't do a damn thing, didn't lift a finger to fight Samuel Alito. Worse yet, when the Gang of 14 decided to vote in favor of cloture, they said that they did not consider cloture votes "significant" and would not be considering them in their scorecard. They then went on to add insult to injury by asking their membership to thank Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman for the beatings they delivered with their "aye" cloture vote by pretending that their "nay" floor votes were significant. They then poured salt into the wound by endorsing both "short ride" Lieberman and Chafee over their opponents who made it clear that they would not have voted for cloture for Alito, which gave us the 5-4 decision we have today.

Don't reward failure. Tell your friends. Don't give money to NARAL when they come knocking on your door to tell you that choice is going down the crapper unless you give them a lot of money, because what you'll be giving money for is Nancy Keenan's ability to point her little pinky over tea at Washington cocktail parties and tut-tut over the state of choice in this country at the hands of the fundamentalists. She'll take no responsibility for the fact that NARAL will not fight, will not back those that fight, and worse yet, that NARAL sucks up all the pro-choice money so nobody else can mount a meaningful fight, either.

While Jane was contemplating NARAL's response to the Supreme Court travesty-- a travesty that could easily should be laid at NARAL's feet-- I was on the phone with Congressman John Hall, preparing for Saturday's live blog session. He had just come out of the first meeting of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and he was brimming over with enthusiasm and excitement. He talked for 10 minutes about the committee before I could get in a word. (Come back Saturday at 2pm EST for the global warming stuff.) I asked him what he thought of today's Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion. He had just walked out of the committee room when he called me so he didn't know it had happened and he said he had to read the ruling but... and he was off on a tear: "That phrase is a complete misnomer deliberately attached to this procedure to make it seem more unpalatable and more abhorrent. I don't know any woman who is excited about having an abortion at any time during her term." He had ideas about the availability of emergency contraception and about eduction, not just for women but for men as well.

John Hall just happened to be on the phone with me today when this came down. But he's the kind of informed and progressive candidate that Blue America supports. We don't support reactionaries who are a threat to women's rights or gay people's rights or who support illegitimate wars. NARAL is an insider political clique that has lost its way. There are state offices, like the one in New York, that are fine and effective organizations. The national Inside the Beltway NARAL is not one of us. It's one of them. Joe Lieberman? Lincoln Chafee ANY Republican? Republicans-- whether an extremist wingnut like Sessions or Cornyn or a supposed moderate like Collins or Chafee votes to organize the Senate in a way that can only be utter disaster for women's rights and tends to vote-- with the connivance of NARAL-- on procedural matters with the GOP.

NARAL, Chafee and Lieberman brought you Sammy Alito-- and made you pay for it-- and today Alito was the fifth vote in the religionist right's effort to chip away further at Roe v Wade. NARAL is either naive or incompetent or both. When they ask you for money-- based on today's Supreme Court ruling, no less-- tell them you're donating to the Blue America PAC instead. The first question we ask a candidate is how they stand on women's right to choice. If they waffle we tell them "good luck" and recommend they go talk to the DCCC or DSCC. And don't just tell them you are, how about $5 today for our PAC. We'll be using it to support candidates like John Hall and the ones you see listed with a grassroots campaign like the one we did for Victoria Wulsin last year in her first-- and nearly successful-- bid to unseat Mean Jean Schmidt. Think about what John Edwards said today when the decision was handed down: "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake -- starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose." And then think about what John McCain-- a variation on the theme of what all the wingnut candidates had to say-- "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."




UPDATE: WAS THIS RADICAL SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TODAY A BIG DEAL?

You bet it was! Scott's got the details.