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-choice 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 naïve 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?