Sell-out interest groups are becoming as big a problem as sell-out Dems.

[More Than A Feeling]

Now that NARAL and the Sierra Club have endorsed Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) over either of his Democratic rivals (Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse), can we expand the discussion of liberal political failure over the years to include establishment interest groups along with people like Joe Lieberman? It's not fair that elected officials like Lieberman should be getting so much flack alone, when these groups are proving to be enablers as well. I'm not saying sell-out Dems don't deserve most of what they get, just that they shouldn't be the only targets. Take a look at how the Sierra Club justified the endorsement:

The Sierra Club is endorsing Chafee even though the group gave the senator only a 20 percent rating in its environmental scorecard in 2004.

The club said a vote for Chafee is better than a vote for a Democrat because of his position as a dissident within the majority party.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/20/1152/35605

Because there's no chance that the majority party will change. :sarcasm: Nor will the Sierra Club help it change. They are a combination of Oliver Twist ("Please, sir, may I have some more?") and Kevin Bacon in Animal House ("Thank you, sir, may I have another!")

Besides as we have learned over the past five years, Republican "moderates" are a bunch of phonies. They vote with the party when it matters, and vote against only when there is no danger of that vote actually defeating the party's interests.

If the grassroots is going to take over the Democratic Party, we should also look into taking over these organizations, so that they stop shooting themselves in the foot by endorsing to keep the party that is proud of wanting to screw their agenda over in charge.

[VelmaD]

1. NARAL is not a Democratic organization...

Chaffee has voted in a pro-choice manner and that's what NARAL is about...choice...not Democratic politics...just protecting choice. And if they want to support a pro-choice Republican that's not a bad thing...if nothing else it helps pro-choice Republicans get elected to help them counter the real whackos in their party.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Surely NARAL must realize however

that choice would be better protected in a majority Democratic Senate instead of a majority Republican one.

[The Magistrate]

3. That Is A Damned Thin Reason They Gave, Sir

It is precisely the Chaffees of the Republican Party we must target and defeat: they are vulnerable, and they are as essential as wretches like Brownback and Santorum to the enemy's retaining a majority. The "moderate Republican" must be made extinct in office as the "boll weevil Democrat".

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Quite right. This would be more understandable

(and justice of it more debatable) if Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse were known to be anti-environment zealots. But I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that that is the case. They are Democrats from the most liberal state in the union (or at least, the one that hates Bush the most), I think we can count on them.

[depakid]

5. Truer words have never been spoken

If the contrast is created and people see the choice, I have little doubt where the majority lies.

[mdmc]

6. i see it very differently

in 2001, the seiu labor union endorsed Pataki over McCall for gov in NY. It was sad that the dems couldn't keep organized labor in their camp. After the election, seiu fought pataki tooth and nail. It was too bad that the dems couldn't even keep their main supporters, working people, with the party.

I would never fault www.mmp.org or norml for supporting a GOP candidate that supported legalization. I think that it is disgusting that the dems sell out progressive , liberal interest groups the way that the party does.

When you triangulate, you lose. It will only work when you have the charisma of the big dog.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. The interest groups are not doing what you suggest

If the whole Democratic party were clearly worse than the Republican party on these issues, then you would be correct.

However, that is not the situation. The Democratic Party is clearly better than the Republican Party on these issues of labor, the environment, and choice, but the groups are betraying those agendas because of (in some cases) disagreements with SINGLE politicians, who won't control the agenda of the party.

Furthermore, in this case, the groups appear to be more willing to get one meaningless vote from Chaffee over getting a majority that would actually further their aims.

[mdmc]

8. I don't know anything about the two dems that the OP talks about

Why does NARAL hate them both so? If NARAL and the environmentalist group hate them enough to endorse the GOP, why would either dem candidate think that they have a chance in the general?

Why can't the dems find candidates that have the support of leftist interest groups? Is it that the interest groups are not really progressive or is it that the dems are rat worm finks that are running on a "lesser evil" campaign platform?

[More Than A Feeling]

9. Here are their stances on environmental issues and abortion

Judge for yourself:

http://www.mattbrown.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=245

http://www.whitehouseforsenate.com/?p=138
http://www.whitehouseforsenate.com/?p=153


http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Matt_Brown_Abortion.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Sheldon_Whitehouse_Abortion.htm

[mdmc]

10. my question is "why do the dem candidates rub left wing groups so bad?"

In other words, why are the dems so hated by the non-profit groups? They must have very little charisma to lose the endorsements of such good groups.

[mdmc]

12. kick

for the links

[bemildred]

11. That is what self-interest would dictate.

It is in the pecuniary interest of any anti-X advocacy group that X remain always under dire threat. The larger and more lucrative the job of running anti-X, the more likely that policy will avoid any permanant resolution of X. NARAL takes in much more money when the threat to abortion rights is most credible, and the same applies on the other hand to those which are "pro-life" when abortion rights are broadly constructed and secure. It's a great racket.

[dsc]

13. In NARAL;s case it is even worse than that

they basiclly killed the campaign of a Democratic candidate who was pro life (US Rep Langevin) and after doing that betrayed us by endorsing Chaffee. Langevin had better numbers than any of the other candidates when he withdrew entirely due to pressure from NARAL and other pro choice groups.