[A]bortion rights groups have the impressive ability to marginalize themselves in the public debate even when they represent a majority position.

The groups' most common tactic is to label the pro-life position ''intolerant" and ''misogynistic" at best, and in cahoots with violent extremists at worst. And when they're not demonizing their opponents, they're busy mocking them. Although many religious Americans consider abstinence an acceptable moral and personal choice, in the rhetoric of abortion rights advocates it becomes prudish and unnecessary. Earlier this summer NARAL's Washington affiliate held what was advertised as a ''Screw Abstinence Party"; last year, the Pennsylvania affiliate urged members to send ''chastity belts" to state legislators in protest of the state's ''Chastity Awareness Week."

Okay, I'm not one to tsk tsk the mocking of the other side. I mean, "Chastity Awareness Week"? I think the chastity belt gambit was hilarious. Then again, I'm not trying to sway undecided voters to my side. The choice groups theoretically are. Still, that I won't criticize since I can't meet that standard myself.

But Sullivan hits on one of my recurring themes -- the quest for litmus-test purity within the party:

But the final straw came when Senate Democrats acted on this advice and recruited pro-life Democrat Bob Casey to run against Rick Santorum for Pennsylvania's Senate seat in 2006.

Pro-choice advocates lashed out. National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy called out Kerry and Dean by name, and declared: ''If that's what it means to have a big tent, if it means abandoning the core principles of our party, if it means throwing women's rights overboard like so much ballast...then I say let's keep the skunk out of the tent." The political director of Emily's List, the fundraising group that has been one of the biggest sources of support for many Democratic candidates, complained, ''We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party."

The word soon went out that Casey would get no support from women's groups, and powerful donors were encouraged to refrain from giving to his campaign. The race appears to have become a test case for many in the pro-choice community. They would rather see Casey lose than defeat Santorum, perhaps the Senate's most vociferous abortion opponent.

As if to underline their point, NARAL took the unusual step of endorsing Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, a full year and a half before the 2006 election. The message was clear: a pro-choice Republican is always preferable to a pro-life Democrat.

It didn't take long for NARAL to regret the move. Less than three weeks later, Chafee voted to support the nomination of radically conservative judge Janice Rogers Brown. NARAL issued an angry press release, warning Chafee that they would be ''watching closely his future votes on judicial nominees, including...those for the Supreme Court." Now, of course, Chafee has announced he will vote in support of Roberts. Meanwhile, the pro-life Reid--exactly the type of Democrat these groups would see defeated if they had their way--has announced that he will vote against Roberts's confirmation.

The Choice groups aren't the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the Democratic Party. If NARAL and NOW aren't pleased with Casey or Langevin or whoever, they don't need to endorse. There are plenty of pro-Choice Democrats that could use their help. Same goes for the environmental, labor, trial lawyer, etc groups.

As Reid's votes on virulently anti-choice (and anti-labor, anti-environment) judges shows, it's better to have a Democrat than a Republican hold any seat in Congress. Better, that is, for those of us who care about the broad palette of progressive issues. That doesn't mean that NARAL is forced to support Casey. Neutrality is an option.

Believe it or not, we took the Colorado state legislature precisely using this kind of thinking. The state's progressive groups came together and divided zones of responsibility. Then they created two political organizations to support the efforts of Democratic candidates -- one which supported the efforts of candidates who met the entire progressive checklist, and the other for candidates who were less "perfect". That way, NARAL never had to put a dime into a district in which the Democrats was anti-choice. Labor didn't have to help out in districts where the Democrats was hostile to their interests. And so on.

And it worked. The umbrella group running the operation targetted 16 Republicans in the Colorado House and won 15 of the races. It was an excercise in movement building, not myopic single-issue focus. And while there are Democrats in the Colorado House that are less than optimal on any number of progressive issues, the entire movement benefits from having a friendly party in control.