NARAL continues to support Lieberman, hasn't talked to Ned?

[madfloridian]

I have been pretty patient with the NARAL shenanigans, donating loyally. But now I am calling the number listed at FDL, and I am asking for my donation back.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/14/a-closer-look/

"And I was told, yes indeed, they are continuing to endorse Joe Lieberman, loser of the Democratic primary. When I asked why, the fellow with whom I was speaking didn’t really have an answer, and didn’t feel comfortable talking with me further about that particular question. When I asked if they had spoken as yet with Ned Lamont’s campaign to ascertain whether a switch in endorsement might be the better move, considering Ned kicked Joe’s butt in the primary and all, I was told that he didn’t know the answer to that question. When I asked if they were getting a few phone calls on this latest contact on the CT Senate race, he told me that they were.

You, too, can contact NARAL if you would like, and ask why it is that they continue to endorse Joe Lieberman, whether they plan on ever contacting the Lamont campaign to even speak with a fully pro-choice candidate, instead of a pseudo-pro-choice-but-voting-for-Alito-cloture-short-ride-kinda-guy like Lieberman, and just what they are thinking with this myopic decision-making in general. Here is their contact information: Main Number: 202.973.3000; Main Fax: [phone]; Shipp’s Number: [phone].

[MadMaddie]

1. Thanks for the information.... I will be calling...

[saltpoint]

2. Good for you to contact NARAL -- I don't blame ya one bit.

also, I wonder if as the days and weeks of this campaign roll on NARAL's individual members in CT will come over to the Lamont side.

A lot of perceptive Dems in NARAL nationwide will be emailing each other about Joe's being a has-been. I think Ned will pick up a lot of those votes, no matter where the top cats throw their endorsement.

[ShaneGR]

3. Although I don't support Lieberman... why shouldnt NARAL??

He has a PERFECT record on womens reproductive issues. Absolutely flawless.

* Day 1: Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)
* Keep abortion safe, rare and legal; with 24-week viability. (Dec 2003)
* FDA’s RU-486 decision stands; it’s made properly by experts. (Oct 2000)
* Leave abortion decision to a woman, her doctor, and her god. (Oct 2000)
* Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)
* Supports abortion rights within his faith, not despite it. (Sep 2000)
* Parental consent with judicial override; Gore agrees. (Aug 2000)
* Supported parental notification for minors; but pro-choice. (Aug 2000)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

[madfloridian]

4. They have every right to do so. I have every right to not support them...

anymore. I just left a message with my phone number asking for my recent donation to be returned.

If you think it is ok for them to do this, then I don't know how to explain it to you..

Joe just attacked Bernie Sanders. He is in attack mode with fellow Democrats.

NARAL can do this, it is their right. But not with my money. Not anymore.

Lieberman lost, and now he is attacking the party.

[ShaneGR]

5. Ya, perfectly within your right, just NARAL isnt a Dem organization

They are a pro-choice group, plain and simple. They really don't stand to gain anything my not supporting Lieberman, considering his voting record on the issue. Lieberman didn't lose the primary on his abortion record, he lost it on his war record. Tough spot for a group like that. Has Lamont answered NARAL's questionare yet?

EDIT: What is Lamont's position on abortion? I have no idea.

[madfloridian]

13. Neither does NARAL.

.

[dolstein]

6. Unlike Lamont, Lieberman has an 18 year Senate record in support of

abortion rights. Why should NARAL ignore that?

[saltpoint]

7. Unlike Lieberman, Lamont is the Democratic nominee.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. But NARAL isn't obligated to support the Democratic party

I am 100% with you that every Dem organization needs to get behind Lamont. But NARAL is a non-partisan interest group whose only focus is reproductive rights - they have no special obligation to Lamont or any other Dem. They have endorsed Republicans before when said Republican was pro-choice.

Like it or not NARAL is in no way obligated to work for a Dem majority. That's why I don't donate any money to issue interest groups, but rather to candidates and/or Democratic party organizations who are obligated to support Democrats.

[saltpoint]

11. Agree, but the Republican platform is clear on its stand on the rights of

women in this country.

In essence, y'all are expected to stay home and help with the cookin' and reproductive rights are not to be enjoyed, but restricted. The GOP has been an Abstinence-Only kind of party for some time now.

That's the distinction.

Lieberman lost the primary; Lamont is the nominee of the party that much more consistently supports a woman's right to choose and other reproductive liberties.

That's what I meant by that distinction.

________

Hey there. I haven't seen you in a while on these boards, and there you are tonight. howdy and good wishes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Yeah... your post underscores why I don't donate to issue groups

I know the best way to support women's rights is to elect Democrats; so I give my money to Democrats, not groups like NARAL.

It's always good to cross paths with you, Old Crusoe - I'm hanging in there. Best of wishes to you too, friend.

[saltpoint]

18. Wild-Eyed Liberal, your photo of John Kerry is the BEST picture of

him I've ever seen.

Just outstanding.

Almost as outstanding as the man himself.

Jesus, I wish he was president instead of that maniacal little rodent who's in there now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. I love it too OC

It says so much without any words, doesn't it?

[saltpoint]

23. Exactly right. It is the picture of a man who is not territorial or

power-mad. Also a man not bloodthirsty for glory or fame.

His profile is casual yet formidably present, and notably smaller than the vast flag behind him -- the individual citizen is less than the complex nation he's a part of.

I see that photo and get homesick for what might have been.

Do I think Bush/Cheney cheated Kerry/Edwards? You betcha. Like the malevolent thugs they are, they cheated the entire country out of an absolutely terrific team of public servants.

If the GOP goes down in flames in this upcoming midterms, they by god deserve every bit of it.

[LynneSin]

20. They cannot support platforms, that's endorsing the party

They can only support candidates and they are only concerned about the specific issue. And we need a few friends on the republican side to help keep choice a legal option.

[Tesha]

26. NARAL occasionally is "locally smart, globally brain-dead"

NARAL (and/or its local affiliates) occasionally takes positions
that're "locally smart, globally brain-dead". NARAL-NH did it in
1994 when they endorsed Charlie Bass, the Republican challenger
over Dick Swett, the Democratic incumbent for the 2nd CD seat.

Now there's no question that, viewed from his position statements,
Bass had the better positions on abortion rights. But as you'll
recall, 1994 marked the loss of the Democrat's majority in the
Congress, and *THAT* has had a devastating effect on women's
rights in general, and especially on abortion rights. NARAL-NH
would have been far smarter to have endorsed Swett, the guy who
didn't quite fit their position, but who as a member of the
party that generally supported their positions, than to have
endorsed Bass and thereby help lose the whole enchilada.

And it turns out Bass often votes the Republican party line anyway,
contrary to his stated positions before being elected. (In other
words, he lied on his answers to NARAL-NH; wot a shock, ehh?)

Right after the endorsement, I demanded (and received) my NARAL-NH
contribution back, but it took a long time to convince them to quit
calling me to solicit another contribution.

Tesha

[sendero]

28. Let's face it..

... single-issue organizations are ALL pretty much brain-dead. I support gun rights but the NRA can kiss my ass.

I support women's reproductive rights, but clearly organizations like NARAL can also kiss it.

[LynneSin]

10. Naral is a not-for-profit organization not an extension of the dem party

If they were to support just the democrats they could lose that status

[saltpoint]

12. Are you the person who doesn't watch cable news? Hi, LynneSin. I KNOW

it isn't an extension, but in the thread above I explain the distinction I am making. It's based on party platforms, and of those two major parties, give me the Democrats every time. Every goddamned time, in fact.

And Lamont is the Democratic nominee and some posters hereabouts are zealots for the defeated Lieberman.

[LynneSin]

21. No didn't watch any cable news tonight

I agree with what you're saying, but party platform endorsement pretty much means you're supporting the party. Trust me, NARAL is in our court but it does help to have a few republicans on our team

[saltpoint]

22. I would love it if a lot more Republicans would support a woman's

right to her own body, and the right to choose what should happen to it.

I have an aunt who is still living, approaching 100 now, and while she is a starchy GOP voter from way, way back, she unswervingly contributes to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

So you're right -- those folks are out there. I wish there were more of them.

It seems like common sense to me that individual women should not be tethered to others' restrictions on such deeply personal matters. A woman and her physician should cover it.

_____

I'm still mad at USA Today for their comments, and on another thread tonight on DU, throw in my 2-cents' support for you and your posts. To hell with those slimeballs over at USA Today, etc. More power to ya.

[LynneSin]

24. I was embarassed at first but now I'm cool with it

My reply to Mr. Raasch is in GD

[JerseygirlCT]

29. His statement on rape victims and the state's Catholic hospitals

might be one good reason.

[LynneSin]

8. NARAL is not a democratic entity

they are non-profit which means they support any candidate provided they are pro-choice

[madfloridian]

14. Wow!

What can I say? I think NARAL can do what the ever hell they want. So can I. Right? Or not.

Why do you think I thought NARAL was Democratic? Why would you think that?

Next you guys will jump me for saying Imus is wrong to ban Dems from his show unless they support Joe.

[madfloridian]

15. Guess what!! I KNOW it is not a Democratic group. I am not stupid.

But with Lieberman now going on the attack against his fellow Democrats, I most certainly have a right to be outraged with them.

Good Lordy, you'd think I'd endorsed Bush or something.

[madfloridian]

16. Read this diary at Kos....what Lieberman's campaign is doing is

inexcusable.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/14/204841/848

I know someone in 04 who said we were no safer with Saddam captured. Joe said he was in a spider hole of denial. But that person graciously endorsed the winner and worked for him.

Joe is in his own little spider hole right now, and there is no excuse for what he is doing.

He will not be the only incumbent to go this time, so we may end up with more Republicans who were Democrats who thought they were entitled.

Does that bother me? Hell, no. I will not be held for blackmail if an incumbent gets whiney because they did not win.

[dolstein]

25. No, what's inexcusable is that Lamont's supporters

somehow expect that their nominee should get a free pass in the general election simply because he convinced slightly more than 20% of the states registered Democrats to vote for him in the primary.

What's inexcusable is the utter contempt that Lamont's supporters have for the remaining 80% of the electorate. Apparently, they don't feel that their candidate has any obligation to work to earn the support of any of these other voters.

[madfloridian]

27. That's ok, Dolstein.

Lieberman's showing of his true colors will give CT voters a good picture of who would be best.

I leave it up to them.

Your attempts to blame those who voted for Lamont are just sad.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Nice playing with numbers

Do you really think then that the fewer than 20% who voted for Lieberman on the 8th matter more?

Or that 100% of the electorate will turn out for the general?

Lieberman made a choice -- to put his private ambitions ahead of what's right, and what's best for the state. This is the man who couldn't even win a presidential primary here, remember?

Lamont and his supporters have shown no contempt for the electorate. They played by the rules, entered the party primary, and won. Now they are involved in a general election as the choice of their party. How is that contempuous in any way of the process or the electorate? Or did you think that Lamont should step aside? Now THAT would be showing some contempt for the voters.

What voters there were chose Lamont. You can play with the numbers any way you like, that fact won't change. It's how elections work (at least when they're fair and don't involve Diebold and friends).

[madfloridian]

31. Got a call back from NARAL today..

We talked about how Joe has been acting, attacking the Democrats, talking like Bush. The lady I spoke with seemed to agree he was most likely going to become Republican.

We left it that they have a right to endorse whomever they choose, and I will donate to other causes. I gather there has been no discussion with the Lamont campaign, and it did not sound like there would be.

They are crediting my card with my last donation. I hate it, but I feel that strongly that no one is entitled to anything when they forget about the people. Joe is in effect saying the primary was not even important, and that's sad.

[eccles12]

32. Oh, you mean NARAL, the wives and girl friends of the neocons?

Oh, that group.