Gotta say, Kos is all sorts of right on this. NARAL's exhortations to tell bloggers that choice is a real issue that affects women's lives is somewhat invalidated by the fact that bloggers seem to have a better understanding of what the political landscape affecting choice looks like. Helping to drive out Langevin, attacking Casey...A Democratic Congress, no matter the beliefs of a few pro-choice members, would not create an anti-choice judiciary. A Republican Congress has. And, sorry, but NARAL doesn't do the Democratic party much, indeed, any good (as this poll proves). If the party wanted to make a political calculation for more votes, it'd Sister Souljah NARAL and focus on economics.
But we won't. Because we want what NARAL wants. Because we believe in choice. The Republican party doesn't. And so long as pro-choice Republicans vote for anti-choice speakers, that's all that matters. Kos gets that, NARAL, at least publicly, doesn't.
Update: Oliver gets it.
Update 2: Is this discussion really going to be misrepresented as defenders of choice vs. enemies, as in if you don't leap into line behind NARAL's moves you're somehow anti-choice? I think Kos, and certainly me, believe that NARAL is doing the wrong thing if they actually want a pro-choice America. This isn't about party loyalty and advancement. If it were, my argument would be to publicly and loudly disown NARAL because doing so would be just the sort of defining moment that could erase the widely-held but wrong perception that Democrats brook no dissent no choice. I don't advocate that, not because it would be bad politics or bad for the party (It'd be kickass politics and great for the party), but because it'd be bad for NARAL and bad for choice. Which is exactly the reason I oppose NARAL's endorsement of Chafee.
I'm 21. If my girlfriend gets accidentally pregnant, you better fucking believe I want options. Choice is real to me. Not as real as it may be to her, or many women, but real. And I'm angry because, in this case, NARAL is failing me.
