Jane Hamsher asks a very good question. Why is NARAL continuing to endorse Lincoln Chafee when they clearly have much more solid pro-choice candidates in the state’s leading Democrats, Sheldon Whitehouse and Matt Brown?
What is up with NARAL? Hamsher contends that they have become money-grubbing Washington insiders who no longer serve the cause for which they were established. To get NARAL back on track with doing their job, she suggests contacting them and giving them some feedback. Here is my feedback for NARAL:
Dear NARAL leadership:
Why are you continuing to support and endorse Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island when our two leading Democratic candidates, Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse, both declared that they would have supported a filibuster in order to block the nomination of Samuel Alito?
We need a much stronger pro-choice Senator representing us here in Rhode Island, someone who will go the distance and ensure that women continue to have the freedom to choose abortion. I urge you to endorse either Matt Brown or Sheldon Whitehouse for US Senate, and to withdraw any further support for Lincoln Chafee.
There is no logical explanation for why they continue to support Chafee. Yes, he voted against the nomination of Alito, but the deciding factor in the nomination was the vote for cloture, which he supported.
Is it just inertia that keeps them hanging on to their original endorsement of Chafee back in May of 2005? Or has NARAL really become a stale and empty organization?