Former CNN anchor Campbell Brown did another of those “I’m for wimmins’ rights but Planned Parenthood is so MEEAAAANNNNNN!” agitprop-eds in the New York Times (hey, two in two months! Hooray right-wing fluffing-disguised-as-faux-moderate “concern”!):
Almost half of the organization’s funding (46 percent) comes from the federal and state governments, making it imperative that it have friends in both parties. But that’s tough to do when Planned Parenthood sees ideological purity as so paramount that it permeates every aspect of its strategic planning. There is almost no room for even slight deviations. Those who are not in lock step with the organization are viewed as enemies to the cause.
Yeah! How dare Planned Parenthood now genuflect with those who seek its utter destruction! The nerve! The unmitigated gall!
Anyway, there is some good news to come out of this – Brown’s sanctimonious pleading with PP to do the right thing and be more like us was well and duly hammered. Kathleen Geir:
…Brown is married to Dan Senor, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers. This is not mentioned anywhere in the op ed. It damn well out to be.
About the op-ed itself: it is one of those sleazy, totally disingenuous “I’m a pro-choicer but” arguments by someone who is trying to concern troll Planned Parenthood out of existence. Brown, never one to back down from a cliché, claims she wants abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.” She also claims to be a Planned Parenthood supporter, but attacks the organization for very sensibly refusing to support certain so-called moderate Republican politicians who do not support their goals. One such politician is Senator Susan Collins, who Planned Parenthood declined to endorse because, among other things, she made the indefensible decision to support the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
I’d understand publishing this if there was some plausible way to paint Campbell Brown as a nonpartisan moderate or whatever, but there’s not. She’s Dan Senor’s fucking wife. If you want to call me sexist, I’d say the same thing if the Times published something like this from Todd Palin.
The key questions it fails to tackle are obvious and numerous:
–What evidence is there to suggest that Planned Parenthood has a “shrinking number of defenders”?
–Why shouldn’t the organization endorse the candidate that has a better record on the issues it cares about?
–Why does Planned Parenthood owe deference to incumbent pols who happen to be pro-choice?
–Why do Planned Parenthood endorsements automatically imply that the organization views opponents of candidates it endorses as “enemies of the cause”?
–What does it say about the strength of Brown’s case that she cites only two races, three cycles apart, out of the hundreds (thousands?) of races Planned Parenthood has reviewed for endorsement over the last four years?
But set aside the giant conceptual hole at the center of Brown’s critique and the moderate-glorifying, power-coddling mindset on which it depends. Just as important are the facts Brown and Collins get wrong, and the disturbing implications of the junior senator’s words.
Of course, the right has predictably latched onto this as another installment of “even the liberal media” – thus completing the cirque d’bullshit.
I’m sure the Romney campaign thanks you for your (dis)service.