So what do you call Concerned Women for America?

So what do you call Concerned Women for America? That group is in the news because it's a former client to the Domain Group, a marketing company founded by Tim Burgess, who is a candidate for Seattle City Council. Burgess' rival, incumbent council member David Della, says Burgess helped CWA put out "hate messages" that were anti-gay and anti-pro-choice. Burgess says working with CWA was a mistake, that he personally disagreed with CWA messages, and he ultimately persuaded his business partners to drop the client. Della has tried to keep the CWA-Burgess link in the news, making the case that Burgess "supports the values Seattle has consistently rejected." Burgess says Della is just trying to smear him. Here's how the Seattle Post-Intelligencer described the issue. Journalists writing about CWA have come up with different shorthand to describe the organization. One story in The Seattle Times called it a "Conservative Christian group." A piece in The Stranger called it a "fundamentalist Christian group." The P-I called it a "far-right public affairs organization." George Bakan, publisher of Seattle Gay News, calls CWA a hate group. In an e-mail, he chastized me for using the phrase "Christian women's group" in a recent article. "That is like calling the KKK an affinity potluck group of old South manners," Bakan wrote. Bakan raises an important question about how, in politics and human rights, the terms we use to describe ideas and organizations can be loaded or neutered, and it pays to take care. For example, "internment" of Japanese Americans sounds much milder than the fact of it for the people on the receiving end – imprisonment. I agree with Bakan that my phrase "Christian women's group" was too vague and bland. It could be used to describe the altar society at my old parish. I revised my phrasing. But what about Bakan's point, that CWA is closer to KKK? I think that goes too far. Your comments?