I don't know, this may be the smartest thing Planned Parenthood could do. Endorsing Guiliani just draws attention to him not being completely over the deep end, abortion-rights-wise. The more the Republican base remembers this, the less likely he is to get the nomination. And since he appears to be the hardest one to beat in the general, it's in our interest that the base sees him as too liberal now, so we can deal with someone easier to beat later on.

And yes, is all entirely wishful thinking.

Apparently, PP isn't going to let NARAL keep the title of "Dumbest Goddamn Progressive Group in the City" without giving them a fight.

(alternately, I suppose they *could* be trying to torpedo his campaign by befriending him, knowing that the Christian Right will revolt at being in bed with them - but that seems a bit too sophisticated for a liberal advocacy group)

I'm more of a glass-half-empty kind of guy than Ryan, apparently; I saved my "Maybe Dems and their allies do have their shit together" theory for my parenthetical remark...

They're not complete idiots - they're clearly hoping for a nail-in-the-coffin role here (while simultaneously burnishing their non-partisan imperative); but too often these ideas end up being too clever by half...

Yeah, I don't think we can credit PP with aiming for a bank shot here. I think they (delusionally) believe they can gain a beach-head in the GOP and slowly, bi-partisanly eliminate all opposition to abortion rights.

It's of a piece with NARAL's endorsement of Linc Chafee last year. Had voters followed NARAL's advice, Republicans would still control the US Senate, which you would think members of NARAL would understand runs counter to their purposes. But as far as they were concerned, Linc was an individual and they were happy to support him. Similar with Specter, who gets endorsed by unions in PA, then votes for Mitch McConnell for Majority Leader, who wouldn't help a union if his life depended on it. And same with Giuliani who if elected (perish the thought) would continue the downward spiral of the progressive movement in this country.

I take issue with some of Kos' analyses of contemporary politics, but his take on the uselessness of the liberal interest groups is absolutely on the money.

I'm not sure this is automatically a bad decision on the part of Planned Parenthood. Their goal is probably to portray abortion rights as something accepted by all decent people, regardless of political party.

He repeats that he's personally opposed to abortion, that he would support further restrictions, that he would appoint an anti-choice Supreme Court justice, and that overturning Roe would "be OK."

The thing to keep in mind is that Giuliani won't actually do any of those things. Those are the mealy-mouthed answers he gave when he thought he still had a chance to sway anti-choice fundamentalists to his side. As soon as he looked at the primary calendar and realized he could attract more delegates in the early states with pro-choice conviction rather than with anti-choice platitudes, he dropped the platitudes.

Giuliani not an anti-choicer. He's just an opportunist who happens to really support abortion rights. Planned Parenthood can't lose by hitching its wagon to an alternate star. Heads, they win. Tails, they win.

Giuliani does not have a lifetime endorsement from Planned Parenthood, and he does not have an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Action Fund today. But he has chosen to run for the Republican nomination as a pro-choice candidate and that shows a commitment to mainstream values that a majority of voters can get behind. The more politicians we have who support women's health, the better. It will be a great day when choice isn't even a political issue. But if we ever want to break the right-wing, anti-choice grasp on the Republican Party, we have to start somewhere. We have to show all candidates that standing up for women's health is not a Republican, Democrat or Independent value -- it's a value that all Americans can and should support.

Ann, are you in favor of "choice" when it does not concern abortion? Would you favor letting people have the choice to opt out of Social Security and save for retirement on their own? How about letting people have the choice to carry a concealed firearm? Just curious.

By the way, great job to the tech guys for "fixing" the comments section.

PP, the problem is that I don't think Giuliani wanted PP to stand up for him.

If Planned Parenthood stands up and says "yes, sir, way to go!" and that politician backs away saying "These people don't represent my views!" how is that helping the cause?

Maybe if Giuliani were actually seeking Planned Parenthood's endorsement there would be a reason for this message, but as far as I can tell he doesn't seem to want them anywhere near his campaign.

As I posted in Adele's thread, the best way to create more pro-choice Republicans is to create more pro-choice Republican voters. The politicians will follow the voters, not the other way around.

Planned Parenthood,

If I may, it's "Democratic" value, not "Democrat."

I know that might seem uptight, but that usage just galls me.

Other than that, I agree with your point. I don't think your support helps Giuliani in the GOP primary, but you're right about breaking the anti-choice faction's stronghold on the Republican Party. The GOP used to stand for individual liberty. It can do so again, but only if candidates begin to see that they will be supported for doing so.

Rachel, I hear you. I'd love your thoughts on what you think the better message would be so that I can pass it along to others here. Should we ignore it? Focus on the ridiculous things the other candidates are saying? Focus on the Dems?

I don't expect PP to comment on alleged sneaky reverse-psychology strategy (e.g., "Why yes, we *do* want Dems to win, so we're trying to torpedo Rudy's nomination now," which I wouldn't expect PP to say, for a *number* of reasons), but if they're soliciting advice, I'd suggest they push back on Carhart II.

Ask why conservatives ignore doctors. Ask why Kennedy ignored Roe. Ask why women should vote for politicians who want to ruin their lives just to burnish their "pro-life" credentials. Ask why pro-choice voters shouldn't use this as a defining moment in sexual/choice politics and rights, and ask why *anyone* on the right side of the political spectrum should be trusted on these issues, even if they *say* they're supportive.

Or does PP not object to Lieberman and Alito, either? Because given the contentiousness of abortion as an issue on the right, I would *not* count on making it an issue that isn't political. The only way to be *sure* that it's not a political issue is to sell women down the river entirely, and too much of recent Democratic/political strategy, from a variety of sources, has looked like, and effectively done, just that.

How much different does PP think Giuliani's judges would be from Bush's? And why?

PP, There definitely needs to be a much larger conversation about turning the country back to a pro-choice majority. I think one side is selling an argument and the pro-choice side (because we don’t want to look like we are “selling” abortion) isn't.

I think there's been a bit of an argument gap and the pro-choice side isn't really selling the concept the way the anti-abortion side is. (This is grounds for a long, long discussion...).

But in the meantime I think PP and NARAL needs to be a bit more realpolik about their political maneuvers. That means thinking about what your political moves are trying to achieve rather than what is a good symbolic move.

"The GOP used to stand for individual liberty."

No it didn't. It stood for unfettered access to ever-greater wealth for a select few, and a police state for everyone else.

Chris and Rachel, thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I think it's especially important as our Action Fund gears up for 08.