1115.org

The reason that it is important to track the statements of people like Grover Norquist, James Dobson, Pat Robertson et al is that, free from holding elected office, they are not bound by the same rhetorical constraints as their counterparts in government. Their candor produces quotes like this Norquist classic:

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.”

There are others of course, but those words crystalize why it is important for Democrats to never back down from a Republican challenge. After NARAL pulled their ad criticizing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the RNC wasted exactly zero time before taking a victory lap, and as predicted is preparing to attack the next ad in the same manner: (RNC email 8/13/05)

Yesterday, it was announced that the outrageously false ads aired by NARAL attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts would no longer be seen on television screens across the country. Despite Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to condemn the false ads, the American people have spoken loudly against this degradation and NARAL has conceded to the overwhelming pressure. But now we must prepare for NARAL’s next planned advertisement and the liberal Democrats’ efforts to push their next round of attacks against Judge Roberts.

Unsurprisingly, the email rants on, stacking distortion after lie after fabrication into a tower of nonsense that probably raised a few hundred thousand dollars and produced more calls to Senators than the ad that NARAL paid for. Just in the above paragraph, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman managed to lie about how widely the ad was seen, (”across the country” vs. Rhode Island & Maine), manufacture outcry (”the American people have spoken loudly” vs a few insiders), and raise an interesting double-standard (criticizing Democratic leaders for not condemning the ad when no one in the Republican party has ever spoken out about the untrue attack ads of the last three campaign cycles). But it was the declaration of victory and the spoiling for the next fight that caused the tent in Mehlman’s slacks. They live for this stuff because it proves their superiority and keeps the donations flowing.

The irony is that, despite Republican caterwauling, it was Democratic pressure that weighed more on NARAL’s decision to switch ads. The public tension, detailed in twin New York Times and Washington Post stories, is almost certainly a faint echo of what was being said in private.

“You could see from Naral pulling their ads down that the public is not going to tolerate going too far,” said Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, who says Democrats will face difficulty if they frame the Roberts nomination solely in terms of abortion rights.

“We have to define the reckless left of our party and differentiate ourselves,” said former Clinton aide Lanny Davis, who denounced the NARAL ad. He said such “smear and innuendo” has caused his party to lose recent elections.

It’s a sad day when fact-checking nominal allies and enemies is equally necessary, but Kerrey did sit on the deeply flawed 9/11 Commission and Davis was a legal advisor to President Clinton during Monica-gate, so their lust for the unadulterated truth may stop somewhat short of the standard set by those who consider NARAL’s ad “dishonest”. Kerrey appears to have no problem whatsoever repeating false Republican spin about what the “public” will tolerate, and also needs to be reminded that NARAL ≠ Democrats. For his part, Davis outs himself as someone who hasn’t a clue. NARAL is absolutist on choice, that’s their mandate, and it doesn’t get any more left than that. Telling them that they are too far “out there” is the same thing as saying Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform should ease up on tax cuts: single-issue groups who moderate their mission are doomed. But it’s Davis’ latter quote that really gets to it. “Smear and innuendo” has caused Democrats to lose elections, because Republicans have no compunction about playing dirty. With the newspapers of record quoting Democrats like these, it’s no wonder NARAL wilted.

The minute NARAL tried to skirt the boundaries of propriety, they got hammered by Republicans, Democrats with weak stomachs, and Democrats attempting to make truth and facts into a vice. Now it’s clear that the ad could have been better and more accurate, something Kevin Drum’s rewrite displayed. But is objective truth the best weapon here? We’re drowning in truth about the misdeeds of the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress. The Downing Street Memo, the President’s National Guard service, breaking rules on Congressional votes—the list of examples of provable malfeasance should be enough to cause a revolution. But these facts have been underreported or unnecessarily muddled, deemed by the media to be too bitter a pill or unpatriotic to receive adequate coverage. What’s a party to do when facts are on their side, yet truth has deteriorated in effectiveness?

Whether or not you believe that the NARAL ad was appropriate or not, the weekend’s events should be proof positive that pulling the ad has done nothing but make a bad situation much worse. It would be enough to say “NARAL screwed up and they have to fix it” if politics took place in a vacuum. But the array of influencing outside factors renders that unworkable, and turns the standard into “Can NARAL fix this, or will any change make the problem worse?” It’s now obvious that their original mistake was only compounded by their capitulation. The two days of coverage the ad received while it ran was followed by two days’ coverage of its pulling, and when the new version begins running this week, there will undoubtedly be two more days of controversy. In many cases tripling the newsworthiness of an ad campaign would get someone a promotion, but not when no one stops to cover the facts (real or insinuated) of the case. And rather than a promotion, NARAL’s communications director is out of a job.

This should be a wake up call, and an opportunity to change certain behaviors that plague our collective cause. Enough of the intra-party criticism on the front page. Until the twitchier members of our coalition understand that protecting their cocktail party invitations is not a good enough reason to attack their allies in public, the media will continue to propagate the idea that the left is divided. NARAL isn’t the Democratic party, and there is a difference between the dirty business of campaigning and the nobility of governing. But as long as the more strident refuse to accept these facts, the pattern of losing will continue.

NARAL must also accept their responsibility. It’s not their responsibility to get approval from Democrats before running an ad, but the courtesy of communication before airing shouldn’t be out of the question. And let’s not forget that NARAL made their own bed by endorsing Republicans Lincoln Chaffe, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, who then had to be targeted by NARAL’s own advertising. They’re overdue for another look at whether it might be wise to sit out races that pit pro-choice Republicans against pro-life Democrats.

We don’t need to cross over to the dark side to win, but ignoring what it takes to win does a disservice to our goals, our party, and especially the voiceless who need the protection our policies provide.