Political Relativism: Blogger Jane Hamsher writes:

While it's open to debate how much influence NARAL's decision not to support anti-choice Langevin in the Rhode Island race had on his decision to drop out, it was perceived as significant. Their endorsement may not mean a lot in Alabama, but it means a lot in solidly pro-choice New England states. Further, their decision to continue to support Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman even after their disastrous vote on Samuel Alito is a signal to other Senators that is okay to vote like this in the future and keep your official pro-choice credentials in the process. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are rubber stamping these votes. How exactly do they plan on coming out and fighting the next Supreme Court Alito-lite nomination if they don't start yanking chains now?

Whenever major media outlets need an official quote from the pro-choice movement, they call NARAL and Planned Parenthood. If they are not speaking up against this bullshit, nobody is.

The problem is that in doing nothing they are actively hurting their own ability to do the good work that Planned Parenthood consistently does. If the South Dakota Rapist Rights bill goes through, it won't matter how many brave souls are willing to staff an abortion clinic, they won't be able to do so. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no more important task right now before the pro-choice movement than changing the balance of power in the US Senate and breaking up the Gang of 14....

I can think of nothing that will have less importance to the "pro choice movement" in the U.S. than electing a Democratic majority this November. However unlikely, at the moment, the prospect of taking seven GOP-held seats may seem, the prospect of taking over the Senate will be of almost no signifcance in preserving abortion rights, or protecting the privacy rights of women. That fight is now in the hands of the judiciary.

And if party stalwarts such as Daniel Akaka, Herb Kohl, and Maria Cantwell were not motivated to use the filibuster when the party was in the minority, and it was one of the only weapons in their arsenal to fight back against the far right, why should anyone believe they'll put up much of a fight when they gain the majority? And if the blogosphere doesn't care enough to send them a message, instead focusing all its wrath on the hapless Mr. Lieberman, why should other Democrats stick their necks out on principle either?

Based on recent history, the party's track record is not promising. One doesn't even have to look to the last four years, and examples such as the 2005 Bankruptcy bill or the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to realize what a worthless vehicle the party is in effecting worthwhile change, since there are numerous examples of what it did when it actually had a majority. In the five and a half years since 1990 when the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party, it:

1) confirmed Clarence Thomas;
2) prevented President Clinton from ending anti-gay discrimination in the military;
3) failed to pass bills mandating access to health care (Hillary's plan, or any plan), public financing of elections, K-Street reforms, term limits, or efforts to curb gerrymandering;
4) passed the Patriot Act;
5) supported the resolution to go to war with Iraq, and generally supported the President's policies (before they opposed them);
6) created the Homeland Security Department; and, last but not least,
7) confirmed Michael "Heckuvajobbrownie" Brown to run FEMA.

That's quite a track record for a political party that's ostensibly supposed to be defending the great liberal tradition in this country. So pardon me if I don't get too exorcised about whether NARAL endorses Joe Lieberman or Lincoln Chafee, or use my small corner of the internets to whore for Democrats this election. Making the Democratic Party something worth fighting for can't be done by scapegoating a single Senator, not when almost half the party sucks from the same sleazy teat.