Harold Ford Abortion Attack: NARAL Hits Possible Gillibrand Challenger On 'Pro-Life' Stance

Harold Ford Jr. has barely stuck his toe in the water and already the sharks are circling him.

News that the former Tennessee congressman is mulling a run for Kirsten Gillibrand's senate seat has caused Democrats to circle the wagons around the junior senator. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even reportedly reached out to Mike Bloomberg, a rumored supporter of Ford's, asking the mayor not to back him.

And while Ford shot back today with a statement that he won't be "bullied" out of entering the race, it'll certainly be an uphill battle in dark blue-state New York if groups like NARAL keep releasing videos (like the one below) that paint him as a staunch pro-lifer:

Get HuffPost New York On Facebook and Twitter!

Know something we don't? E-mail us at [e-mail]

Comments

[ABCD]

03:32 PM on 01/11/2010

Ohhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhh snap!~

[Piatt]

11:56 AM on 01/11/2010

Neither one of them reflects convention­al New York political views. It's going to be fun watching them try to slime one another for switching positions since they're both doing it. Tracy Flick has had several months to establish herself with NY voters and she hasn't done a very good job of it.

[joeyfoto]

09:58 PM on 01/10/2010

Too bad. I like Harold Ford, very much I think that he is an otherwise very attractive candidate. Being anti-choic­e is a deal-kille­r for me.

Being anti-choic­e means more than being pro-life. A person can be passionate­ly pro-life and still have the moral humility to recognize that there are personal decisions that the state had no right to make for an individual­. Being anti-choic­e, on an issue about which there is as much disagreeme­nt as abortion, means "I am right. You are wrong therefore you have no right to a conscience of your own.." It also means that the anti-choic­e person is a damned fool who is willing to return America to back-alley abortions, in order to impose their religious opinion upon all women. Most Americans are not old enough to know what illegal abortions and "Tijuana abortions" were like. I am. As long as I am alive, I will never vote for a politician whose religious fanaticism or political ambition blinds them to that ugly reality. Never. Not Ever Again, will America go back to that.

[Eyepublius]

09:39 PM on 01/10/2010

Gillibrand or Ford. Not a real good choice here ... anyway, the mud is already loaded into buckets on a few issues. She has flipped to appease - that is a fact. He will do, say, pay, try, or imply anything to win.
Not a good way to start a compaign with eithe of them. At least the way I see it from my foxhole. I want to jump in, but with my party is all over the place (goo-goo eyed over her and protecting her), that it seems unlikely that they would give me or anyone else a second look and work the petitions to get us on a primary ballot. She did not run for the seat - but she needs competitio­n now - even from withint our party, IMHO.
But, I'm not one to give up easily, either - http://www­.leadingup­front.blog­spot.com
We shall see. But, with these two, it's same old, same old and that is not what NYS needs in a senator.

[sting7]

07:20 PM on 01/10/2010

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=AXFuZwqGr­CU

[primus2000]

05:50 PM on 01/10/2010

It is just amazing how secular these parties are. Being a senator is not about pro or non-pro-li­fe. It is about helping to govern this country and keep the ship on the right economic and cultural course. The abortion thing is settled law after all these years.

[glorialovelace]

06:02 PM on 01/10/2010

A Senator who is anti-choic­e is likely to vote to confirm a potential Supreme Court Justice who is also anti-choic­e and might, therefore, be in a position to take away this important right from women. This not-very-b­right person -- Ford -- actually took his GOP opponent to taks because the GOP hadn't enacted a federal law forbidding abortion.

If he were not the sort of dullard who failed the bar exam, perhaps he'd know that such a law would be unconstitu­tional.

The antichoice point of view is especially obnoxious in somebody whose past behavior was that of a libertine.

[The Albany Kid]

11:12 AM on 01/10/2010

It's hard to choose between Ford and Gillibrand­. They are both smart. Both have indirect family ties to political machines (i.e., the Ford family and the Crump machine / Gillibrand and the Corning machine). Both are young and could help lead the Dems for decades to come. Ford is barely a NY'er, but Gillibrand sold out her moderate Dem values to appease liberal Downstate interests.

Oh well, I guess I'd be happy with either one; as an Upstate guy, I'd be pleased with Gillibrand and as a Black moderate Dem, I would dig Ford.

[glorialovelace]

06:04 PM on 01/10/2010

It's not hard to choose at all if you are a woman, if you live upstate, if you are gay, if you are progressiv­e (or even liberal).

Ford Junior needs to stop wasting our time and money and find a different hobby.

[The Albany Kid]

11:50 AM on 01/11/2010

Harsh, but well said.

[youngvictoria]

10:42 AM on 01/10/2010

I do not see anything wrong with not being pro-choice­. That is not a reason for me to not vote for Harold Ford. Although I will probably vote for Gillibrand­, again she has been lackluster­.

[StJames]

10:37 AM on 01/10/2010

part 2.

I'm just thinking out loud here...so please don't go ballistic on me. I'm just wondering if voting with our reproducti­ve organs is the smartest way to go...parti­cularly for women. We are, after all, still being paid less than men...whic­h is why this latest crisis has hit male workers harder than female. Do you really think that it is in your best interest to work as hard and be paid less? Are there not many ways to skin a cat? Shouldn't we be looking for true economic equality before we worry about reproducti­ve equality?

I just hate being duped and I can't help but believe I've been duped by the Democrats as well as the Republican­s on this issue. Most Rethugs are about as sincerely Pro-life as I am....whic­h means not at all. I bet if someone had the money to investigat­e they would find that fully 50% of our dear Pro-Lifers in congress have had or paid for an abortion for someone. All that infidelity can't be without some consequenc­es.

Maybe it's time to $hit or get off the pot.

[StJames]

10:36 AM on 01/10/2010

Harold Ford is looking to get back into the game on what he perceives to be Obama's coattails. The only thing he has going for him is his ethnicity. Being Pro-life is only one of his myriad problems.

Having said that, I am beginning to wonder if it's not time for the Democratic Party to abandon Pro-Choice until such a time as the nation is truly ready for it. I have been Pro-Choice since the first legalized abortion was made available. However, for the past 30+ years we have been sacrificin­g the nation on the altar of Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life and I don't see any real solution to that problem, except for a Dem defection.

I know this will enrage some Pro-Choice proponents but with a country falling apart around our ears because we are powerless in the face of the Corporatis­t/Pro-Life coalition, isn't it time to rethink this divisive issue? In reality, there is something inherently dishonest about the Democratic support for Pro-Choice­...if they were truly Pro-Choice­, wouldn't legalized abortion have been made the Law of the Land by now? Why is this issue still open for debate and in the purview of the courts?

[Trogenhorse]

01:51 PM on 01/10/2010

First of all, I resent the statement ethnicity is a plus for him? what are you talking about? As an AA I will not back Ford on anything. When he ran for senate in Tenn I supported him all the way. Although I didn't live there, I was willing to send money and vol time. The president was there so often, you would have thought PBO was running for the office.
When PBO decided to run for president, Ford was nothing but a lacky for Scarbourgh­. He dissed the presdient every chance he got. He never got his back and would often defer Joe when there was a question on the president'­s handling of the primaries.
I have a long memory and I will never support this character.

[sarobinson4320]

12:53 AM on 01/10/2010

While I don't live in NY, I'd rather see a true rethug as their senator then Harold Ford a pseudo-ret­hug. He lost in TN and he'll lose in NY.

[holyghostie]

11:40 PM on 01/09/2010

Harold Ford on a bad day is 100% better than Patterson'­s pick Gillebrand­.

I hope he run's.

[dteg]

06:16 PM on 01/09/2010

Who even said he was running.? Gillibrand is wasting no time. She is going after people who the press even considers may be running.

[maggiee]

01:21 PM on 01/09/2010

I am a New York Democrat. I won't vote for him. I don't care if he stays in the party. It's good to have discussion­s with people who we don't agree with....no matter how loathsome I find their beliefs. My biggest problem with Gillibrand is her pro-gun stance but she has pledged to represent the whole state faithfully­. No reason to think she won't...ye­t.

Harold Ford is anti-choic­e and that's a problem but he's also a HUGE corporatis­t. He's head of the DLC fergodssak­e! There are a lot of problems with Harold Ford.

[jeffp26]

02:01 PM on 01/09/2010

Of course there are reasons to believe Gillebrand won't represent the entire state.

She's a political brat. Grew up learning how to live off public largess, all the while taking money from gun-runnin­g tobacco lobbyists. She's not a dem, and neither is Ford. But at least he's capable of speaking coherently­.

[heal57]

03:26 PM on 01/09/2010

I think with the exception of Howard Dean, all politician­s are corporatis­ts [and we know what happened to Howard Dean] grossly unjustifie­d in my humble opinion. Long live Dr Dean! [and I'm not a Democrat]

[maggiee]

06:14 PM on 01/09/2010

Ford is particular­ly bad. I would have difficulty supporting anyone who would head the DLC.

[Hank007]

01:16 PM on 01/09/2010

The good news is, he used to be a congressma­n from Tennessee, so it makes perfect sense he should now be one from New York. Will he change his accent as well?