Many pixels have been spilled over Ned Lamont’s challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman. But the factional friction is not limited to the specific race, and seems to be re-opening an argument, last heard during the Alito fight, between the netroots and traditional interest groups.
NARAL Pro-Choice America is one of several Beltway lobbies endorsing Lieberman for the August 8 primary. Yet Carolyn Triess, Conn. chair of the group, cast her lot with Lamont as a delegate to the Conn. Dem convention in May. And Triess’ thinking is much more in line with the lefty blogosphere than her own parent organization.
A primary reason for this disconnect is Lieberman’s views on the morning-after pill. As Connecticut blogger “Connecticut” Bob Adams noted in May, Lieberman has voiced opposition to forcing hospitals to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake has been perhaps his sharpest critic, in her rhetorically excessive way. Ned Lamont is clearly aware of this disconnect; his official site includes this unambigiuous affirmation: “I will fight to make the morning after pill available over the counter, to make emergency contraception available to all rape victims, and to support the nomination and appointment of pro-choice judges.”
But this isn’t the first time NARAL has found itself the wrong end of the blogosphere.
Hamsher and others last hit NARAL in January over their endorsement of pro-choice Republican Lincoln Chafee, who voted for cloture on now-Justice Samuel Alito (whom many assume would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade) but against his confirmation. She wrote at the time:
“I just got off the phone with NARAL and I am being told that they do not consider Chafee’s vote on cloture to be significant. They are not going to pull their support for him over this. … This ridiculous little kabuki about voting AGAINST Alito and FOR cloture is a sham, and if NARAL is going to look the other way they no longer deserve to be the guardians of a woman’s right to choose in this country.”
Lieberman, too, voted for cloture but against confirmation.
Washington groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood recorded the confirmation vote on their all-important scorecards — as they have done in past nominations — but not the cloture vote. In NARAL’s defense, the cloture vote hasn’t been very controversial in the past, and they have reasons not to change the rules in the middle of the election cycle.
But we’re still in the middle of it, and today Hamsher made the point as forcefully as ever (although her controversial coinage doesn’t show up until a reader uses it in the the 166th comment), asking readers to explain what she can’t seem to wrap her head around: “I really just do not understand the endorsement by NARAL and Planned Parenthood of Joe Lieberman.”
Surely she is aware of the reason, which she just as surely finds unacceptable: Most lobbying groups have a policy of endorsing incumbents with acceptable voting records on their particular interest. Even the NRA endorses Democrats over Republican challengers on occasion (including one Howard Dean, eight times).
The institutional directives couldn’t be more stark. Lobbies don’t want to end up on the wrong side of a politician if they’re returned to office. Bloggers don’t have the same need to get along. It’s almost against their nature, and that’s a big part of why they’re interesting.
Yet NARAL’s own blog, Bush v. Choice, seems not to have clearance to defend the organization on these issues. Instead it sticks to doing what its name suggests, casting aspersions on “anti-choice” conservatives and Republicans. NARAL just isn’t engaging the conversation. And at its own blog, neither is Planned Parenthood. These groups maintain something different than the blogs as most know it. They are “blogs” more than blogs. The one thing you can say of Joe Lieberman — he doesn’t even pretend to be blogging.
WWB,
Wow - so interesting that you chose to write about this. But I do need to defend NARAL and Planned Parenthood and do a bit of explaining on their behalf. Both have 501c3 status which means those funds must be spent solely on social welfare/education. They both also have 501c4 status which means that more than half of those funds must be spent on social welfare/education (they must be “primarily” education). Social welfare/education means that an organization must be bi-partisan. So these groups are legally required to endorse Republicans and they have to find a reasonable way to do that (via scoring votes) or they could lose their tax status. So, when they score confirmation, but not cloture, that is most likely their lobbyists’ efforts to keep their GOP endorsements (along with their tax status and the bulk of their funding).