NARAL...taking the low road.

[beagledave]

What do you do when a SCOTUS nominee, whom you think that you philosophically disagree with..seems to be relatively well respected, even by some of your political allies?

Apparently if you're NARAL..you lie and start a rumor campaign.

Nothing is out of bounds (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8554)..


"They [NARAL and other anti-Roberts groups] went into this with a laundry list of things, and the idea that given what was at stake nothing was out of bounds," says a Democratic lobbyist who is part of the Roberts fight. "That's why you saw that ridiculous Roberts-is-gay thing spinning through the blogosphere, and why you had serious reporters looking at the adoption issue."

Another Democratic operative said that NARAL officials hit on the adoption issue because "Some of these NARAL and really aggressive pro-choice groups see political motivations behind everything. They see people who adopt children -- beyond the desire for children -- having an ideological predisposition against choice issues. It isn't just about kids, it's about politics."


{snip}


"There is a lot of Roberts writing, but there isn't anything much to hang our hat on. He's clean, and it's frustrating our ability to paint him anything other than what the White House put forward: a smart, sharp and fair legal mind."


That route not working really well? Time to borrow a page from the Swift Boat Vets playbook..

Howzabout flat out lying (http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html) in an attack ad?


Summary


An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .

The ad is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.



The stench of political desperation is not a pretty thing.

[Bricker]

Truly ugly. NARAL is not simply shading the truth here. They are out-and-out lying.

How repulsive.

[GLWasteful]

Pro-choice individual checking in to say that this sort of thing is a very bad idea. Unless they're actually striving for the same level of believability that is usually reserved for the Swifties and their ilk.

[Metacom]

How repulsive.
I agree.

Now we just need someone to come along and defend NARAL so we can have another mud-flinging trainwreck. How long will it take?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Agreed, that such smear campaigns are despicable no matter who runs them. Stupid, too, in this case, since the nomination will succeed no matter how much mud gets flung. (Unless there's some major skeleton in Roberts' personal closet,which I doubt.) NARAL is damaging itself and its cause to no good end.

[Maus Magill]

Note to NARAL: Just because "the other guy does it" does not make it okay to lie and smear.[1]

[1] - Refering to the Swift Boat Veteran who have been soundly discredited.

[jsgoddess]

Lying to get ahead is unacceptable, be it from politicians or pundits. Winning through lies isn't winning at all--it's manipulation.

The research into the adoptions doesn't bother me if they don't attempt to lie or spin the results.

[Jackmannii]

The NARAL ad is misleading as to Roberts' role in submitting a friend of the court brief and his positions on related issues.

The fact remains that he supported Administration policy which impeded efforts to protect clients at abortion clinics. The Supreme Court decision which sided with the Administration is dubious at best. From beagle's link:"The court, in a 6-3 decision, ultimately agreed with much of the government's argument, saying that "the characteristic that formed the basis of the targeting" for protest "was not womanhood, but the seeking of abortion," which is entirely voluntary."

Yep, nothing particularly relating to womanhood there. :rolleyes:

"... some saw Operation Rescue's actions as relying on the threat of violence, at least. In his dissent, Justice Stevens, describes the protests as instances where “the duly constituted authorities are rendered ineffective, and mob violence prevails.” Justice O’Connor, in her own dissent, spoke of "the threat of mob violence" raised by the blockaders."

When you attempt to separate the federal government from any responsibility to discourage these actions, that is worthy of criticism.

As to "lying and starting a rumor campaign", what do we make of this: "That's why you saw that ridiculous Roberts-is-gay thing spinning through the blogosphere..."

How exactly is NARAL connected to that? All I see is an undocumented allegation by an anonymous columnist.

The pious declaration in the Spectator column that the other side is resorting to (gasp) politics (unlike Roberts' defenders, who are interestingly trying to paint him as a Friend Of Gay Rights) is truly the most shocking thing I have read today.

[El Zagna]

I noticed tha NARAL dedicates an entire page to the "far-right spin" on their ad, but they never offer cites indicating who these "far-right" groups are. Surely they are not claiming that FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html) is far-right.

[Bricker]

I agree.

Now we just need someone to come along and defend NARAL so we can have another mud-flinging trainwreck. How long will it take?

I'd say about 33 minutes.

The NARAL ad is misleading as to Roberts' role in submitting a friend of the court brief and his positions on related issues.

The fact remains that he supported Administration policy which impeded efforts to protect clients at abortion clinics. The Supreme Court decision which sided with the Administration is dubious at best.

[Squink]

from beagledave's cite:
It is true that Roberts sided with the bomberSo, other than Robert's support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, he doesn't support terrorists. Thanks for the heads up beagledave, I fear that subtlety may have been missed by a few who've gotten too involved in the "with us or against us" movement.

[Squink]

In re plaid pants:
There's nothing wrong with plaid pants.
If Robert's wants to wear plaid pants, that's his business, no one elses.
I've worn plaid pants myself.
They made my legs feel colorful.


Roberts Papers Being Delayed
Bush Aides Screen Pages for Surprises (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901232.html)

[Merijeek]

Pro-choice individual checking in to say that this sort of thing is a very bad idea. Unless they're actually striving for the same level of believability that is usually reserved for the Swifties and their ilk.

That'd be the believability that won them the most recent presidential election?

I keep hearing from a lot of people around here that a win justifies the means.

-Joe

[Jackmannii]

Maybe Bricker can explain how my post can be summarily dismissed as "defending NARAL" (especially when he quotes me as saying "The NARAL ad is misleading as to Roberts' role in submitting a friend of the court brief and his positions on related issues."

I can understand not bothering to read someone else's post accurately, but the least he could do is actually comprehend his own post.

Or he could actually refer to the issues raised. Too difficult?

[Bricker]

from beagledave's cite:
It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber
So, other than Robert's support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, he doesn't support terrorists. Thanks for the heads up beagledave, I fear that subtlety may have been missed by a few who've gotten too involved in the "with us or against us" movement.

The whole sentence, and the following one, from beagledave's cite:

It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics.

[Zeriel]

So, other than Robert's support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, he doesn't support terrorists. Thanks for the heads up beagledave, I fear that subtlety may have been missed by a few who've gotten too involved in the "with us or against us" movement.

Right, because supporting a bomber on a legal point entirely unrelated to bombing is wrong and evil. After all, we can't have any bombers getting any legal rights--let's stick him in Guantanamo Bay.

*double-checks that it's the pit* What the FUCK is wrong with you? The opinion in question had entirely to do with a single point of law and nothing to do with supporting bombing.

On preview: Thank you, Bricker, for quoting so I don't have to interrupt my vitriol. =P

[jsgoddess]

So, other than Robert's support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, he doesn't support terrorists.

I think that's unfair. I support the KKK's right to free speech, but it would be unfair to say I support the KKK's actions or the KKK in general. Agreeing with someone on one or even many issues doesn't mean that you agree with them or support them when they commit violence.

[NurseCarmen]

These one trick pony organizations really start to bore me after a while.

[Revtim]

The article says that Roberts sided with bomber on the civil rights issue 7 years before the bombing in question. Were there previous bombings this guy did?

[Harborwolf]

Let's hear it for raising the bar on political discourse. Who's looking forward to the upcoming elections?

If this shit keeps up, my eyes will be spinning like a slot machine, and I'll be to dizzy to vote.

[Squink]

The article says that Roberts sided with bomber on the civil rights issue 7 years before the bombing in question. Were there previous bombings this guy did?The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror:
Abortion Clinic Violence (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)
There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years. In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics.

[Metacom]

The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror:
Abortion Clinic Violence (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)
That ain't what Revtim asked.

[Bricker]

The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror:
Abortion Clinic Violence (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)

That's certainly reprehensible... but it doesn't mean that clinics had a right to use that particular federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who attempted blockades - does it?

[Squink]

That ain't what Revtim asked.That's because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror?

[Shodan]

That's because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror?
Actually, the right question might be "does supporting one of the legal issues raised by terrorists mean you are supporting terrorists?" I.e., does the ACLU and many on the SDMB support terrorists because of their positions regarding the Gitmo prisoners?

Maybe we need to agree on what constitutes "supporting terrorists".

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr. Moto]

That's because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror?

Gads, but you're dense.

Sure, they're a terrorist organization. I'll say it explicitly. Likewise the KKK, likewise al-Qaida. That doesn't mean a government may impinge upon their free speech or free assembly rights when opposing them.

They certainly may oppose them, but must do so within a legal and constitutional framework.

Perhaps it's been a while since you've actually read the First Amendment. You might want to check it out now, since there's an awful lot of stuff in these few short sentences, much of it directly applicable to this case:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Psycho Pirate]

Typical disgusting tactics from the NARAL loons. Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is par for the course from the far-left wingnuts. I would say they have damaged their credibility, but you have to have credibility before it can be damaged.

[Jackmannii]

That's certainly reprehensible... but it doesn't mean that clinics had a right to use that particular federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who attempted blockades - does it?No, of course the Administration was merely interested in seeing that the Constitution is strictly upheld and that no law is used improperly, solely on the basis of upholding the Constitution, and Strict Construction, and...

Or, to take the non-Alice-in-Wonderland tack, Roberts was a participant in an Administration effort to make it more difficult to crack down on protesters blockading clinics, thus helping to deny women seeking abortion their constitutionally protected right to same. Roberts was not promoting violence, just effectively acting to protect behavior that a couple of Supreme Court justices thought represented mob violence or the threat of it.

Hard to put all that into a 30-second ad, but NARAL certainly could have done a better job of it.

Any of those morally outraged at the NARAL ad care to comment on the Spectator's linking NARAL to the spreading of rumors about Roberts' sexual orientation? Any evidence to that effect aside from a quote from Mr. Anonymous?

Anybody?

[Squink]

Actually, the right question might be "does supporting one of the legal issues raised by terrorists mean you are supporting terrorists?" I.e., does the ACLU and many on the SDMB support terrorists because of their positions regarding the Gitmo prisoners? Of course thay do. I thought the right had settled that issue long ago. Surely you can't be suggesting that now that that slant hurts you it shouldn't be used? Having created the dialog of the day, you must live with it.

[Metacom]

Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is par for the course from the far-left wingnuts.
It's par for the course for all wingnuts.

[Jonathan Chance]

You know, Metacom, I'm beginning to find you strangely attractive.

[Squink]

It's par for the course for all wingnuts.As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign showed, it's also a political fact of life in Bush's America. Sticking to strict factualism, and NOT addressing the larger moral issues is the political equivalent of stumbling into a gunfight with your pants bunched arouned your ankles.
Even Mr. Moto admits that they're a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there's now a chance that the american people will come to know that.

[beagledave]

So, other than Robert's support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, he doesn't support terrorists. Thanks for the heads up beagledave, I fear that subtlety may have been missed by a few who've gotten too involved in the "with us or against us" movement.


It's been pointed out by others..but since you're referring to my cite, FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context by not including the rest of the sentence (and the follow up sentence). Dishonest much?

I think you'd feel right at home with NARAL's (or the Swifties) ad campaign.

[beagledave]

Even Mr. Moto admits that they're a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there's now a chance that the american people will come to know that.

Snicker.

Yeah because the purpose of the ad is to edumacate us ignorant folk that there are advocacy groups that use violence and terror. I DID NOT KNOW THAT, THANKS NARAL!!!!

It sure couldn't be designed to throw lies and mud at a SCOTUS candidate.
:smack:

[GLWasteful]

That'd be the believability that won them the most recent presidential election?
Perhaps I missed it, what with my busy social calendar, but what election did the Swifties win?

Because as I recall, Bush won the election. Are you trying to claim his win to justify their lies? Sounds sorta spotty to me, but to each his own.

Waste

[Larry Borgia]

I don't understand what NARAL's trying to accomplish. Do they think if they can block Roberts, Bush will appoint a strongly pro-choice judge? Granted that Bush might try for an O'Conner type pragmatist, but he might also appoint someone really extreme--Janice Brown, for instance.

Roberts is going to be confirmed. NARAL needs to learn how to choose their battles.

[Bricker]

As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign showed, it's also a political fact of life in Bush's America. Sticking to strict factualism, and NOT addressing the larger moral issues is the political equivalent of stumbling into a gunfight with your pants bunched arouned your ankles.
Even Mr. Moto admits that they're a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there's now a chance that the american people will come to know that.

So you support NARAL's tactics in this instance?

[Mr. Moto]

Even Mr. Moto admits that they're a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there's now a chance that the american people will come to know that.

You say that as if there was ever a chance I wouldn't describe clinic bombers as such. If you wondered about this at all, you don't understand me or my politics one bit.

I'm curious about this thanks you're giving to NARAL, too. You seem to be saying that these tactics that they've engaged in as of late, though untruthful and roundly denounced by nearly everybody here, are justifies in some sense because they serve a greater good, in your opinion.

If the ends justify the means, you can justify some pretty disgusting things. NARAL has shown that, and you are defending them.

[John Mace]

I don't understand what NARAL's trying to accomplish. Do they think if they can block Roberts, Bush will appoint a strongly pro-choice judge? Granted that Bush might try for an O'Conner type pragmatist, but he might also appoint someone really extreme--Janice Brown, for instance.

Roberts is going to be confirmed. NARAL needs to learn how to choose their battles.

Yeah, WTF? It makes no sense. The only rational reason is they just want to muddy the waters and hope that some of the shit sticks somewhere.

[Revtim]

That's because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror?I asked the *right* question, because it described exactly what I was curious about. If you felt like making a comment that was not the answer to my question, you shouldn't have quoted me.

[beagledave]

Roberts is going to be confirmed. NARAL needs to learn how to choose their battles.

I almost (when I'm in cynical mode) wonder if NARAL is occupying the loony fringe here on purpose (besides trying to impact this one SCOTUS nomination.)

They give centrist or moderately liberal dems the opportunity to say "NARAL doesn't speak for me..I'm willing to give the dude a fair hearing before making up my mind". When the next SCOTUS nominee comes down the road in a year or two..they will have established their "reasonable" bona fides if she/he's perceived as Bork 2.0.

I'ts a bit too cynical for me to seriously believe..but there ya go.

[5que]

I always thought they were pretty mellow because they smoked pot all day.

Oh, wait, that's NORML. Carry on.

[jsgoddess]

I almost (when I'm in cynical mode) wonder if NARAL is occupying the loony fringe here on purpose (besides trying to impact this one SCOTUS nomination.)

I think they are being extreme for a purpose, but I think it's simply an attempt to stir up controversy, thereby gaining exposure.

[beagledave]

BTW..if you haven't actually seen the 30 second ad yet...amuse (or disgust) yourself here (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=17767)

The last sentence of the ad accuses Roberts of having an “ideology” that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans".

Actually what Judge Roberts said was “No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals.”

(And...In one memo, Roberts argued that Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the other, he wrote that the bomber of an abortion clinic should not receive any special consideration for a pardon.)

WaPo cite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402032.html)

NARAL is flat out lying in their ad. Those who would excuse the lying out of some "ends justify the means" nonsense should be ashamed of temselves.

[beagledave]

I think they are being extreme for a purpose, but I think it's simply an attempt to stir up controversy, thereby gaining exposure.

Oh I agree...they're the PETA of their cause.

[Squink]

So you support NARAL's tactics in this instance?I accept NARAL's tactics. They're well within the accepted bounds of political discourse. I appreciate Beagle Dave's"FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context," but the fact remains these anti-abortion groups are terrorist organizations, and they were at the time Robert's worked for them. There's nothing wrong with stating that publicly, or is there?

[Mr. Moto]

...but the fact remains these anti-abortion groups are terrorist organizations, and they were at the time Robert's worked for them. There's nothing wrong with stating that publicly, or is there?

Roberts did not in fact work for them, so you're either mistaken or lying yourself.

Now, you can retract this statement if you wish, clarify what you might have wanted to say, or let it stand. Your call.

[beagledave]

Roberts did not in fact work for them, so you're either mistaken or lying yourself.

Now, you can retract this statement if you wish, clarify what you might have wanted to say, or let it stand. Your call.

Facts schmacts...NARAL has a greater calling doncha know!!!!

The Bray case did not even have anything to do with clinic bombings. In addition to the factcheck.org cite, which is pretty comprehensive..I offer the following:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072324.asp


NARAL’s ad and press release give the false impression that the Bray case involved “bombings” and other forms of violence. What was instead at issue was the application of the Ku Klux Klan Act to trespassing and obstruction—unlawful conduct to be sure, but of the sort that is usually described by the Left as peaceful civil disobedience when carried out in support of causes that it favors.


Indeed..to buttress that point..

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072329.asp

Another amicus brief in Bray was submitted by 17 individuals such as Daniel Berrigan “who have been or are actively involved in the civil rights, anti-poverty, labor and peace movements” and who “share a common belief in the importance of nonviolent resistance to injustice.” That amicus brief, like Roberts’s submitted on behalf of the United States, sided with the position of the anti-abortion protesters that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 did not properly apply to their unlawful acts of trespass and obstruction.


{Scooby Doo voice}
Rut Ro kids...Daniel Berrigan and those peaceniks are ALSO in cohoots with the clininc bombers!
{/Scooby Doo voice}

And finally...

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072569.asp


But the claims that abortion advocates presented in their civil action in the Bray case involved claims of trespass and obstruction, not bombings; Michael Bray was one of many defendants (not the lead plaintiff, and not the lead defendant); and the Bray who was the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court proceeding was Jayne Bray, not Michael.


But like I said..facts/schmacts when it comes to the greater good I guess.

[Squink]

Roberts did not in fact work for them, so you're either mistaken or lying yourself.

Now, you can retract this statement if you wish, clarify what you might have wanted to say, or let it stand. Your call.
Will you agree to change your name to Mr. Nitpicky for a day? Because you surely are picking nits here. "Worked for" does have other meanings than "got his paycheck from." I expect that most people already know that, why don't you?

Roberts helped craft the first Bush administration's legal strategy against Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal nationwide. The administration urged the justices to overturn Roe. In a separate case, Roberts personally argued the administration's position, siding with Operation Rescue and other demonstrators who blocked access to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court rebuffed the Bush administration's position in the first case, affirming Roe v. Wade in 1992 and ruled for Operation Rescue in the latter.here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-19-roberts-cover_x.htm)

[jsgoddess]

I accept NARAL's tactics. They're well within the accepted bounds of political discourse. I appreciate Beagle Dave's"FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context," but the fact remains these anti-abortion groups are terrorist organizations, and they were at the time Robert's worked for them. There's nothing wrong with stating that publicly, or is there?

Hasn't the ACLU defended the KKK's right to march and speak and whatnot? Does that mean the ACLU supports the KKK, or does it mean that the ACLU supports civil liberties, even for oogie people?

[Squink]

Hasn't the ACLU defended the KKK's right to march and speak and whatnot? Does that mean the ACLU supports the KKK, or does it mean that the ACLU supports civil liberties, even for oogie people?
Judge Roberts, Every Bit as Good as the ACLU

I like that! Think it'll play with the conservative base?

I've not seen any evidence yet that Roberts would be a disastrous choice for justice. Sure his views on privacy and abortion need a little more scrutiny, and the white house needs to stop stonewalling on his papers, but have we ever had a supreme court nominee who didn't raise a few hackles in everyone who took a good look at their legal history?

Roberts work on behalf of the abortion clinic blockaders is fair game, as is his stance on abortion. The indignant howls from the right merely show that they would prefer to frame the issue soley in a fashion that puts their man in a good light. Standing up for civil rights is good. Standing up for terrorists is not. Roberts has done both. Do we want to confirm a cookie-cut out of a man to the supreme court, or would we rather evaluate the man himself?

[Bricker]

I accept NARAL's tactics. They're well within the accepted bounds of political discourse. I appreciate Beagle Dave's"FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context," but the fact remains these anti-abortion groups are terrorist organizations, and they were at the time Robert's worked for them. There's nothing wrong with stating that publicly, or is there?

Uh huh.

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Do you accept their tactics as well?

[Psycho Pirate]

It's par for the course for all wingnuts.I agree, and maybe this is a distinction without a difference, but to my knowledge the Swifties only accused Kerry of lying about his military career and emphasized his accusations of US soldiers committing atrocities (an unpopular point among many veterans). However, NARAL is accusing Roberts of supporting the bombing of abortion clinics. In my book, the latter is much worse.

[Ravenman]

"Worked for" does have other meanings than "got his paycheck from." I expect that most people already know that, why don't you?[/URL]From Factcheck.org:

"The ad also links Roberts to a "convicted clinic bomber." .... Whatever one thinks of Bray, Terry, or Operation Rescue, it is misleading to say that Roberts supported them. He was not their attorney; the protestors had their own attorney, Jay Alan Sekulow, for that. Roberts argued the government's position."

http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

I can only assume that you're "working for" the forces of ignorance and political hackery. Probably for free, which is terrible, too.

[Squink]

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Do you accept their tactics as well?They are what is. They, and their tactics are widely accepted. It turns out they're very effective too. Any person or party that ignores that reality handicaps themselves in the mad scramble for power.
Have you condemned the Swifties?
Have Bush, Rove or Cheney? Why should any of us even try to be holier than they? Doing so sure won't put the good guys in control of the country again.

Then again, not looking into Roberts support of these demonstrators leaves us with a very two dimensional view of the man. Are you in favor of that?

[Metacom]

I agree, and maybe this is a distinction without a difference, ...

I do think it's a distinction without a difference. Both organizations are willing to distort the truth or outright lie in order to defame people in order to acheive their political goals; what they've chosen to lie about shouldn't matter much (with the obvious exception of inconequential "white lies," which ain't the case with either group).

[Bricker]

Have you condemned the Swifties?

Yes.


Have Bush, Rove or Cheney? Why should any of us even try to be holier than they?

Because it's the right thing to do.


Then again, not looking into Roberts support of these demonstrators leaves us with a very two dimensional view of the man. Are you in favor of that?

"Looking into" is fine. Lying about what is found after looking into it is not.

[jsgoddess]

Standing up for civil rights is good. Standing up for terrorists is not.
Roberts has done both.

Standing up for a terrorist's civil rights is good.

How has Roberts stood up for terrorists other than standing up for civil rights?

[Squink]

Because it's the right thing to do.For who? Are you saying that the party in charge of the country is doing wrong? Will you then help vote them out of office? No cabin in the mountains for you!
This is a lie: Rumsfeld on WMD's
They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
A few, perhaps overly broad words on a 30 second TV spot is not.

[Shodan]

I accept NARAL's tactics. They're well within the accepted bounds of political discourse. Well, accepted by some, I suppose.

Best case scenario here might be that the extreme Left learns the wrong lesson from losing the last couple of elections. Because with this kind of stuff from NARAL ("they started it! We get to lie too!"), the logical next step is for the left-wing extremists to try to engage in election fraud. Since, obviously, Bush and company did that too. Then they get caught (since conspiracy of the sort they so blithely assign to Karl Rove is virtually impossible to sustain), and some of the losers go to prison.

And then maybe the Democratic party will purge itself of those more committed than they should be to embarassing themselves and their party, and lurches back towards the center.

And I don't necessarily think this kind of thing started with the Swift Boat veterans. It's called Borking for a reason.

I'm just saying.

Regards,
Shodan

[DarkPrince]

I never really understood why slander/libel charges couldn't be pressed against the most blatant and obvious lies the swift idiots and these fools throw around. :confused:


Because it's the right thing to do.
As some people like to point out, doing "The Right Thing(tm)" hasn't been winning the dems any elections recently. If someone starts fighting dirty the best way to beat them is to fight dirtier than them.

[Squink]

Standing up for a terrorist's civil rights is good.Well great. Aren't you glad that NARAl's informed you of Robert's deeds? Would you have ever known, without the ad?How has Roberts stood up for terrorists other than standing up for civil rights?Perhaps we'll find out, if the administration ever releases the rest of his papers.

[beagledave]

Judge Roberts, Every Bit as Good as the ACLU The indignant howls from the right merely show that they would prefer to frame the issue soley in a fashion that puts their man in a good light.

Please to explain...ALL of these folks are "from the right"? :dubious:

-beagledave
-Bricker
-Mr Moto
-factcheck.org
-El Zagna
-GLWasteful
-Zeriel
-jsgoddess
-NurseCarmen
-Harborwolf
-Revtim
-PsychoPirate
-Metacom
-Ravenman
-John Mace
-Larry Borgia
-EddyTeddyFreddy
-Maus Magill

Ooo ooo I get it....lying about THIS is "well within the accepted bounds of political discourse" also, right?

:smack:

[Shodan]

So, DarkPrince, stuffed any ballot boxes lately?

:D

Regards,
Shodan

[Merijeek]

Perhaps I missed it, what with my busy social calendar, but what election did the Swifties win?

Because as I recall, Bush won the election. Are you trying to claim his win to justify their lies? Sounds sorta spotty to me, but to each his own.

Waste

Oh, I think it's a load of steaming bullshit.

Fact of the matter is, though, there's plenty of people on this board (and at least one in this thread) whose opinion can quite succintly be summed up as "A victorious election justifies anything".

'sall I was saying.

-Joe

[jsgoddess]

Well great. Aren't you glad that NARAl's informed you of Robert's deeds? Would you have ever known, without the ad?

I can't figure out what you think I've learned from the ad.

Roberts is very probably anti abortion rights in his personal belief. He was employed by Republican administrations and argued cases that also were the side of, or at least leaned toward, anti abortion rights.

The fact that some slimy disgusting people are anti abortion rights, and even the fact that some of said slimy disgusting people might benefit in certain ways from certain of his arguments is not news.

If Roberts makes it to the SC and that court were to overturn Roe, I wouldn't say that he was "supporting terrorists" by doing so. Would you? That his interests, at least as a lawyer, have coincided with the interests of some slimy disgusting people does not make him complicit when they go blow up an abortion clinic or do something else slimy and disgusting.

The ACLU isn't supporting terrorism if they support the KKK's right to march, even if the KKK is a terrorist organization (which I would argue it is).

[DarkPrince]

So, DarkPrince, stuffed any ballot boxes lately?

:D

Mmmmmaaybe... :p


FWIW, I'm not standing up for either the swifties or NARAL. But I do think that if someone's opposition is winning elections by lying through their teeth/voting with dead people/etc, and they're not being caught or stopped... then you damn well better start cheating like they do if you plan on beating them anytime in the near future.

[beagledave]

I did get a chuckle out of how NARAL is trying to weasle their way out of the statements made in the ad.

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/10/sr.weds/)..


But later in the press conference, Keenan was pressed by reporters to explain why, if she said NARAL was not "suggesting" that "Roberts condones or supports clinic violence," the ad says that Roberts' "ideology leads him to excuse violence."

Keenan was asked, "Aren't "condone" and "excuse" the same thing?"

She responded, "I think there's a difference with the...the brief that he filed was purely discretionary. And I think that is why when he, as the government, came in and he, as a political appointee, as deputy Solicitor General, said that the law did not cover as a civil rights law that protects those of us as Americans, that it did not cover the violence, or the groups in protecting women's lives in these clinics. So again, this was a way that he proactively ...proactively ...went and supported these groups that were perpetrating violence against women's clinics."

Keenan was pressed again, "So does he condone clinic violence or does he not?"

Her response, "Again, I don't think he does condone clinic violence. We are not saying that..."

Keenan was interrupted with another question, "but you say he excuses it."



{translation}
Ummm we SUPPOSE that Roberts doesn't "condone" violence...but he is a bad bad man, and if we can, you know (wink wink, say no more) kinda get away with "hinting" that he "excuses violence" which is DIFFERENT...yes DIFFERENT I say...Did we forget to mention that Roberts is a misogynist, patriarchal bad bad man? Say LOOK! Shiny object right over there ===>
{/translation}

[Shodan]

Mmmmmaaybe... :p


FWIW, I'm not standing up for either the swifties or NARAL. But I do think that if someone's opposition is winning elections by lying through their teeth/voting with dead people/etc, and they're not being caught or stopped... then you damn well better start cheating like they do if you plan on beating them anytime in the near future.
I'm glad the Democrats didn't react that way to Watergate.

Regards,
Shodan

[GLWasteful]

It's called Borking for a reason.
You're not actually trying to equate Roberts with Bork are you? Because I don't think that doing so is either a good idea or fair to Roberts.

And Merijeek: A thousand pardons, then.

Waste

[Shodan]

You're not actually trying to equate Roberts with Bork are you? I'm not; NARAL is.

Regards,
Shodan

[Squink]

{translation}
Say LOOK! Shiny object right over there ===>
{/translation}Probably one of those "few bad apples" back from their mission at Abu Ghraib. Was it wearing a secret medal? ;)

[Apos]

If you needed more evidence that NARAL were giant arseholes, you're a silly person. This is exactly the sort of tactic that more and more politicians have mastered into a fine art: give an incredibly simple and incomplete slice of an issue in such a way as to grossly misrepresent what is going on.

Voted for it before voting against it was pretty much EXACTLY the same sort of lie (stating some vague events without presenting any of the actual reasoning, and then drawing an unwarranted conclusion about motives). I can't tell you how glad I am to see Bricker and Shodan standing proud against such tactics and deceptive ads. Now gentlemen, we can fight together to try and heal this great nation!

[Bricker]

I never really understood why slander/libel charges couldn't be pressed against the most blatant and obvious lies the swift idiots and these fools throw around. :confused:


I agree. In fact, a search will reveal that before the 2004 election, I suggested Senator Kerry sue the SBVFT for their libelous crap.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

For those making the comparison, I would point out one thing. I am speaking as a moderate-conservative (one who believes in abortion rights, which I do not consider a factor in liberal-conservative politics):

NARAL exists to promote abortion rights. They do a lot of work beyond this little stunt. This present event is a fiasco, but does not diminish the work they do on a regular basis towards abortion rights. Some have actually accused NARAL of pussyfooting and ignoring threats to abortion rights.

SBVFT, by comparison, was a one-shot political tool with a single purpose: To distort the record of Kerry.

I don't like Kerry. But I will say that the tactics of the Swifties made me wince more than this tactic of NARAL. I know people who frankly should have known better using the Swifties work long after it had been discredited. It was flagrant manipulation, the sole purpose of that organization.

[Zeriel]

Probably one of those "few bad apples" back from their mission at Abu Ghraib. Was it wearing a secret medal? ;)

You are doing more to push me away from the Democratic Party than anything the SBVFT has ever done.
Stop hurting the liberal movement with your insane douchebaggery.

[Evil Captor]

I'm glad the Democrats didn't react that way to Watergate.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, Shodan, in Watergate we caught/impeached the perps responsible. The system worked. It hasn't been working wrt to the Bush administration, however. They just keep getting away with it, year after year. I agree with you that it would be good to put many members of the current Administration in jail, but failing that, the Dems have to protect themselves against a corrupt regime.

[jsgoddess]

FWIW, I'm not standing up for either the swifties or NARAL. But I do think that if someone's opposition is winning elections by lying through their teeth/voting with dead people/etc, and they're not being caught or stopped... then you damn well better start cheating like they do if you plan on beating them anytime in the near future.

If someone else has to cheat to beat me, I've already won.

If I have to cheat to win, I've already lost.

[Evil Captor]

Uh huh.

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Do you accept their tactics as well?

Bricker, are you saying that the abortion clinic bombers didn't get public support from some well-known anti-abortion groups? And who knows what kind of support out of the public eye?

[Squink]

You are doing more to push me away from the Democratic Party than anything the SBVFT has ever done.Cool! the last thing the party needs is more whiny dudes who'd rather support torturers than get their hands dirty in the realities of Bush era politics. Go back to the 90's where you belong.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Dammit. When I first saw this thread title a few days ago, I thought, "Another partisan attack in the Pit, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. How droll. Allow me to pass."

Or, rather, I grunted and read something else.

Then on the radio last night NPR did a story on NARAL's ad (and for all y'all who claim NPR is ultra-left, the story made NARAL look like a bunch of assholes), and I knew that's what this thread would be about. And I opened it today to read folks' thoughts, knowing I'd be disagreeing with some of my fellow leftists in my condemnation of NARAL's actions.

I had no idea that the condemnation of NARAL would be almost unanimous here. Good on y'all! 'Cept for those of y'all not condemning them.

The cure for the evils of dishonesty is not more dishonesty. The cure is honesty, eloquently communicated. NARAL is undermining their own integrity; they're making it less likely that moderates will listen to their opinions in future cases.

They're also making it very unlikely I'll give them any credibility in the future, and that's a shame for them: until this incident, I've been a supporter of them.

I'll still support their underlying mission, but I won't believe their statements anymore, not until they've undertaken a major effort to rebuild their credibility.

Daniel

[Bricker]

Bricker, are you saying that the abortion clinic bombers didn't get public support from some well-known anti-abortion groups? And who knows what kind of support out of the public eye?

Which of my words possibly could have led you to that inference?

[Evil Captor]

If someone else has to cheat to beat me, I've already won.

If I have to cheat to win, I've already lost.

So, you would characterize the Republican Party's activities over the last decade or so as "losing." 'Cause last I checked, they held both houses of Congress and the White House and are busily engaged in packing the federal judiciary. What alternate reality are you living in? Who's president? Does it rain doughnuts?

[Metacom]

Which of my words possibly could have led you to that inference?
It's Evil Captor. He could see someone write "cows eat grass" and infer "I think George Bush is a GOD and want a theocracy by 2008!".

[jsgoddess]

Bricker, are you saying that the abortion clinic bombers didn't get public support from some well-known anti-abortion groups? And who knows what kind of support out of the public eye?

Er, can you point to what gives you that impression? I don't follow.

[Evil Captor]

Which of my words possibly could have led you to that inference?

The full post:

Originally Posted by Squink
I accept NARAL's tactics. They're well within the accepted bounds of political discourse. I appreciate Beagle Dave's"FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context," but the fact remains these anti-abortion groups are terrorist organizations, and they were at the time Robert's worked for them. There's nothing wrong with stating that publicly, or is there?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Uh huh.

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Do you accept their tactics as well?



You equate NARAL's actions with the Swifties, implying an equivalence between the two groups. But there is no such equivalence. The Swifties flat-out lied about Kerry's activities in Vietnam, easily proven lies but effective ones nonetheless. NARAL at least has a hook on which to hang its truth-stretching ... the organizations Roberts supported in his brief DID support the abortion clinic bombers in some ways. I agree it is a stretch to go from there to say that Roberts himself supports them, but I would agree that it does raise some issues that should be addressed during the confirmation process ... at LEAST make Roberts say in public that he doesn't support them ... so I feel NARAL has stretched the truth to make a valid point.

Under those circumstances, the only way a reasonable person like yourself could possibly equate the Swifties with NARAL would be that you didn't believe there was any link between the abortion clinic bombers and the groups Roberts supported in his brief. That's why I asked.

[Evil Captor]

It's Evil Captor. He could see someone write "cows eat grass" and infer "I think George Bush is a GOD and want a theocracy by 2008!".

Oh, please, I have super powers, it's true, but you're making me blush.

[jsgoddess]

So, you would characterize the Republican Party's activities over the last decade or so as "losing." 'Cause last I checked, they held both houses of Congress and the White House and are busily engaged in packing the federal judiciary. What alternate reality are you living in? Who's president? Does it rain doughnuts?

Yes, I would characterize them as losing. They lost me as a supporter. They've lost other people I know. They've sold their integrity, and for what? For transient power in a transient world.

If I wallow with the pigs, I am indistinguishable from them. You want to lie or cheat for your side? Then how will I tell you apart from your enemies? Doing the wrong thing for the "right reasons" still leaves you doing the wrong thing.

There's an old canard about relationships. If someone is cheating on their spouse with you, then they will cheat on you. If you'll lie to gain power, you'll lie to keep power, you'll lie to anyone and everyone. Look at George W. Bush as an excellent example of this principle in action.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

If I wallow with the pigs, I am indistinguishable from them.
It's like Animal Farm, only different.

Daniel

[jsgoddess]

I had no idea that the condemnation of NARAL would be almost unanimous here.

You spoke too soon, apparently.

[beagledave]

Cool! the last thing the party needs is more whiny dudes who'd rather support torturers than get their hands dirty in the realities of Bush era politics. Go back to the 90's where you belong.

Guess "the party" has a growing number of "whiny dudes then"

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11abort.final.html?ei=5065&en=c98fdd39e2d44a11&ex=1124424000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)


Several prominent abortion rights supporters as well as a neutral media watchdog group said the advertisement was misleading and unfair...


{snip}


Within the larger liberal coalition of which Naral is a part, there was considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of other groups generally refused to speak on the record. One who did, Frances Kissling, the longtime president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said she was "deeply upset and offended" by the advertisement, which she called "far too intemperate and far too personal."


{snip}


Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and longtime Naral supporter, sent a letter on Wednesday to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its ranking Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, respectively. Mr. Dellinger said he had disagreed with Mr. Roberts's argument in the Bray case but considered it unfair to give "the impression that Roberts is somehow associated with clinic bombers." He added that "it would be regrettable if the only refutation of these assertions about Roberts came from groups opposed to abortion rights."


Go get 'em Squink..better fire off some letters to this growing group of traitors to the cause.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You spoke too soon, apparently.
Almost. :)
Daniel

[Shodan]

Well, Shodan, in Watergate we caught/impeached the perps responsible. The system worked. It hasn't been working wrt to the Bush administration, however. They just keep getting away with it, year after year. I agree with you that it would be good to put many members of the current Administration in jail, but failing that, the Dems have to protect themselves against a corrupt regime.
Well, then it seems the only resort for you and your fellow fat heads is what I recommended - begin a transparently dishonest campaign against whoever Bush recommends, continue on into dirty tricks and outright fraud, and wind up marginalized, one way or other.

[John Gielgud voice] Good luck in prison. [/JGV]

Regards,
Shodan

[Maus Magill]

You spoke too soon, apparently.
It's almost unanimous. There are just one or two very loud dissenters.

And jsgoddess. Regarding post 88. Hear! Hear! If you have to lie to make your point, then is you point worth making?

[Greathouse]

As someone who doesn't really agree with many of the liberal's positions on issues I just wanted to say how impressed I was that so many self described liberals are willing to speak up against things that their party, or groups associated with their party, does wrong. If only more conservatives were willing to do the same thing* we might have a better working relationship with each other. YMMV




*I do realize that some conservatives do speak up and criticize their own party when they fuck up, but not nearly enough of us do it, IMHO.

[jsgoddess]

It's almost unanimous. There are just one or two very loud dissenters.

I know he said almost. It just seems to be creeping away from there since he posted.

And jsgoddess. Regarding post 88. Hear! Hear! If you have to lie to make your point, then is you point worth making?

I would say no, but what with the cascade of crullers, I might be a bit distracted.

[Evil Captor]

Yes, I would characterize them as losing. They lost me as a supporter. They've lost other people I know. They've sold their integrity, and for what? For transient power in a transient world.

Yes, in a century or so, when the Dems gain power back, they will be able to force King George the XXIII to sign some document allowing them to use voting machines with paper trails and whatnot. THAT'LL show 'em. Gonna be a looooong century, though, especially with fine and principled persons like yourself on the sidelines estabishing your moral goodness and such.

[qoute]If I wallow with the pigs, I am indistinguishable from them. You want to lie or cheat for your side? Then how will I tell you apart from your enemies? Doing the wrong thing for the "right reasons" still leaves you doing the wrong thing.[/quote]

Remind me never to invite you to any susauge-makin' or law-makin' events. I do not think you would care for them.

There's an old canard about relationships. If someone is cheating on their spouse with you, then they will cheat on you. If you'll lie to gain power, you'll lie to keep power, you'll lie to anyone and everyone. Look at George W. Bush as an excellent example of this principle in action.

Spouse cheating? Little late to drag Clinton into it, isn't it?

[Evil Captor]

It's almost unanimous. There are just one or two very loud dissenters.

And jsgoddess. Regarding post 88. Hear! Hear! If you have to lie to make your point, then is you point worth making?

Hoorah for the Cheap Morality Brigade!!! You'll make your point and then sit back, secure that you have made the world safe for Karl Rove.

Look, I'm not saying what NARAL has done is nice or fair. Just that it does raise an important point about Roberts in a situation in which the Bush Admin. just might be able to get Roberts through unexamined. Surely you're not one of those types who are against the Senate actually making inquiries of Supreme Court candidates?

[Evil Captor]

Well, then it seems the only resort for you and your fellow fat heads is what I recommended - begin a transparently dishonest campaign against whoever Bush recommends, continue on into dirty tricks and outright fraud, and wind up marginalized, one way or other.

Outright fraud? Have I asked you for your credit card number lately? What was that number again?

[John Gielgud voice] Good luck in prison. [/JGV][/QUOTE]

Hey, I understand I'll do great in prison ... I have purty lips! Not as purty as Karl Roves, but still ...

[jsgoddess]

Hoorah for the Cheap Morality Brigade!!! You'll make your point and then sit back, secure that you have made the world safe for Karl Rove.

While you simply want to create more Roves. You want both sides to be Rove.

How is that not making the world safe for Karl Rove?

I hate Rove because he is a vicious liar. You don't mind vicious lying, so what's your beef with the man? Envy?

I want the world to be unsafe for the Republican Roves and the Democrat Roves and the SDMB Roves, while you want Roves you think are on your side.

But the Karl Roves of the world are on the side of the Karl Roves. They don't care about you and will screw you if it becomes expedient. That is why he is despicable, not because he happens to have an (R) after his name.

[Bricker]

The Swifties flat-out lied about Kerry's activities in Vietnam, easily proven lies but effective ones nonetheless. NARAL at least has a hook on which to hang its truth-stretching ... the organizations Roberts supported in his brief DID support the abortion clinic bombers in some ways.

Here's the disconnect.

The Swift Boat guys did indeed outright lie.

So did NARAL. Roberts' "support" of the organizations in question had nothing to do with their activities.

An analogy: if PETA hired me because they had been defrauded for office renovations by a carpenter who accepted money but never did any owrk, you wouldn't say I "supported" PETA's goals by suing the carpenter to get their money back, would you?

Roberts' brief was addressing the limited quesiton of whether the abortion protestors violated a specific law. He said what the Supreme Court ultimately said: they did not. He was right. That doesn't remotely translate into support ofr the organizations, no matter how much ...er... "truth stretching" you wish to mention.

If you believe that links for "support" may be stretched so thinly, I'd like you to explain your shocking support of NAMBLA.... since you pay federal taxes to the VERY SAME government whose federal constitution protects NAMBLA's most odious activities. It's an outrage, you pervert, you.

[Zeriel]

Cool! the last thing the party needs is more whiny dudes who'd rather support torturers than get their hands dirty in the realities of Bush era politics. Go back to the 90's where you belong.

Good luck winning elections without any votes, asshole.

If something's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

End of discussion.

[Zeriel]

Good luck winning elections without any votes, asshole.

If something's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

End of discussion.

Acutally, let me elaborate on my last.

Most people who vote liberal/democrat vote on their principles.
If you lie and cheat to try to swing moderates and dumbasses to your side, you are going to lose your mainstream democrat base, and be left with easily swingable middle-of-the-road types, morons, and extreme left-wingnuts.

As a Democrat, I have to ask again why you're trying to destroy the party. Are you a closet Bush supporter? Do you fellate Karl Rove in your head every night before you sleep?

[John Corrado]

Look, I'm not saying what NARAL has done is nice or fair. Just that it does raise an important point about Roberts in a situation in which the Bush Admin. just might be able to get Roberts through unexamined.

And what point? The NARAL ad is demonstrably false, and raises an issue that doesn't actually exist. Roberts never did what he was accused of in the ad, never acted in the way accused of in the ad, and had nothing to do with the bombing or bomber being showcased in the ad.

If anything, this makes it easier for Roberts to get a pass on anything else, as it'll be easier to dismiss as "NARAL-style disinformation".

[Evil Captor]

Here's the disconnect.

The Swift Boat guys did indeed outright lie.

So did NARAL. Roberts' "support" of the organizations in question had nothing to do with their activities.

An analogy: if PETA hired me because they had been defrauded for office renovations by a carpenter who accepted money but never did any owrk, you wouldn't say I "supported" PETA's goals by suing the carpenter to get their money back, would you?

Roberts' brief was addressing the limited quesiton of whether the abortion protestors violated a specific law. He said what the Supreme Court ultimately said: they did not. He was right. That doesn't remotely translate into support ofr the organizations, no matter how much ...er... "truth stretching" you wish to mention.

If you believe that links for "support" may be stretched so thinly, I'd like you to explain your shocking support of NAMBLA.... since you pay federal taxes to the VERY SAME government whose federal constitution protects NAMBLA's most odious activities. It's an outrage, you pervert, you.

Now don't go all lawyer-slippery on me, Bricker. As I understand it, Roberts wasn't hired by the abortion crew, he voluntarily worked on it as part of his firm's pro bono case. You see the difference, I hope. Volunteer work argues a certain amount of personal commitment on Robert's part. How much, I dunno. Perhaps we should ask him about that.

[Evil Captor]

Acutally, let me elaborate on my last.

Most people who vote liberal/democrat vote on their principles.
If you lie and cheat to try to swing moderates and dumbasses to your side, you are going to lose your mainstream democrat base


And the mainstream democrat base will vote for ... whom?

[Mr. Moto]

And the mainstream democrat base will vote for ... whom?

Some might stay home, or only vote in their local elections that day. Some might vote for the Republican, whoever that turns out to be.

I know quite a few Democrats who voted for Bush this last time around.

[Bricker]

Now don't go all lawyer-slippery on me, Bricker. As I understand it, Roberts wasn't hired by the abortion crew, he voluntarily worked on it as part of his firm's pro bono case. You see the difference, I hope. Volunteer work argues a certain amount of personal commitment on Robert's part. How much, I dunno. Perhaps we should ask him about that.

Get your facts straight.

Roberts was serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of George H.W. Bush. He was one of six Justice Department officials who submitted the brief on behalf of the United States government.


He filed an amicus brief on behalf of his employer, the United States. It wasn't pro-bono.

[jsgoddess]

And the mainstream democrat base will vote for ... whom?

It doesn't take that many people peeling off and voting for a Nader before the Democrats are screwed.

The only way your plan works is if Democrats are just as stupid as you think Republicans are. Well? Are they? Are Democrats gullible enough to fall for some Swift Boat Vets of their own? And would you really crow about that if they were?

[beagledave]

Get your facts straight.


In a thread with Evil Captor, Squink and NARAL not so much caring about details like "facts"..I find that statement amusing. ;)

[Evil Captor]

And what point? The NARAL ad is demonstrably false, and raises an issue that doesn't actually exist. Roberts never did what he was accused of in the ad, never acted in the way accused of in the ad, and had nothing to do with the bombing or bomber being showcased in the ad.

If anything, this makes it easier for Roberts to get a pass on anything else, as it'll be easier to dismiss as "NARAL-style disinformation".

If you have information that Roberts actually bombed an abortion clinic, or even helped bomb one, please share. Certainly, no one, NARAL included, has made such a claim. They claim that his pro bono work means he approved or condoned such activities. That's a bit of a stretch, but hardly a huge, stinkiing Swift Boat whopper.

[Evil Captor]

It doesn't take that many people peeling off and voting for a Nader before the Democrats are screwed.

The only way your plan works is if Democrats are just as stupid as you think Republicans are. Well? Are they? Are Democrats gullible enough to fall for some Swift Boat Vets of their own? And would you really crow about that if they were?

The ones who watch TV for their main news sources are just as stupid as the Pubbies. It's not so much what party you belong to as how you inform yourself. And there are a lot of independent voters who are just as hazy as the TV idjits. I'll never forget the TV interview I saw with a woman who had just voted for Bush at the polls, and clearly had no idea why she had done so.

I'm afraid America has been pretty thoroughly dumbed down, jsgoddess.

Wouldn't crow about it, but I'd take the win. I am attracted to Dem policies because I think they work better for average people, not because they make me feel morally superior to others. That's a formula for losing.

[Evil Captor]

Get your facts straight.



He filed an amicus brief on behalf of his employer, the United States. It wasn't pro-bono.

I seem to recall some discussion of the fact that the work was strictly voluntary. Wasn't something he had to do or was ordered to do. Had the opportunity, took it. Was this not the case?

[jsgoddess]

Wouldn't crow about it, but I'd take the win. I am attracted to Dem policies because I think they work better for average people, not because they make me feel morally superior to others. That's a formula for losing.

Yep. Lie to the dumb ones and manipulate them, for their own good!

Again, the only thing bad you can say about Rove is that he's not on your side. Everything else you're defending. The means don't matter, after all. All that matters is power. Winning.

Funny how your "Dem policies" sound an awful lot like "Rep policies" to me.

[Squink]

In a thread with Evil Captor, Squink and NARAL not so much caring about details like "facts"..I find that statement amusing. ;)It is isn't it?
NARAL employs a little artistic license in their ad, some rightwingers whine about how unfair and misleading that is, and the great liberal truth brigades start barking like Pavlov's dogs. With this sort of response, Bricker's probably right about the pubbies picking up a few more seats come 2006.

[light strand]

It’s this kinda shit which brings both parties into the sty.

Wrong is wrong. I don’t give too hoots who did it first. There is no reason for NARAL to try to attach the name of an honorable man to terrorists. Good Lord. This sounds just like all of those jackasses who were saying that the anti-war people were “siding” with Al Qieda.

I am so tired of each side simply digging in their heels based on the idiotic, kindergarten chant of “you did it first!”

Oh and by the way, Bush is an Idiot, and Clinton got a blow-job. That ought to cover it.

[Bricker]

I seem to recall some discussion of the fact that the work was strictly voluntary. Wasn't something he had to do or was ordered to do. Had the opportunity, took it. Was this not the case?

No. I think you're confusing the discussion about Roberts' work on Romer with this case.

[Evil Captor]

Yep. Lie to the dumb ones and manipulate them, for their own good!

Again, the only thing bad you can say about Rove is that he's not on your side. Everything else you're defending. The means don't matter, after all. All that matters is power. Winning.

Funny how your "Dem policies" sound an awful lot like "Rep policies" to me.

You are mistaking policies for tactics.

[Evil Captor]

It is isn't it?
NARAL employs a little artistic license in their ad, some rightwingers whine about how unfair and misleading that is, and the great liberal truth brigades start barking like Pavlov's dogs. With this sort of response, Bricker's probably right about the pubbies picking up a few more seats come 2006.

Actually, Squink, I haven't seen anybody on this thread defending the truth of NARAL's assertions, which is what Pubbies typically do. We liberals, admitting that NARAL has stretched the truth fairly extensively, are just arguing that it's acceptable to use the Pubbies' own tactics against them. You see the difference?

[Evil Captor]

Yep. Lie to the dumb ones and manipulate them, for their own good!

Yeah, 10 years of honesty has worked SOOOOOO well for the Dems. And lying their asses off has worked so badly for the Pubbies.

Wake up and smell the coffee ...

[John Mace]

Actually, Squink, I haven't seen anybody on this thread defending the truth of NARAL's assertions, which is what Pubbies typically do. We liberals, admitting that NARAL has stretched the truth fairly extensively, are just arguing that it's acceptable to use the Pubbies' own tactics against them. You see the difference?

So, the Republicans invented the political attack ad? I didn't know that...

I heard on NPR this AM that Leahey asked NARAL to pull the ad. Good for him.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Oh and by the way, Bush is an Idiot, and Clinton got a blow-job. That ought to cover it. If you made that your sig you could save yourself a lot of typing in political threads.

[jsgoddess]

You are mistaking policies for tactics.

No, I am equating them.

If you will lie to get elected, you will lie to stay elected.

If you will lie about where your opponent stands, you will lie about where you stand.

If you will lie to me for my own good, you will keep lying for my own good. What am I supposed to do, assume that at some point you'll stop lying? When will that happen? It can't happen during the election, because you might lose. It can't happen after the election, because then you might not get re-elected. It can't happen after you've retired because the party is just so important. You say you want what's best for the average person, but you say that you're willing to lie. Are you lying now? How about now? Now?

Karl Rove is your patron saint. He, too, thinks the ends justify the means.

[Evil Captor]

So, the Republicans invented the political attack ad? I didn't know that...

I heard on NPR this AM that Leahey asked NARAL to pull the ad. Good for him.

That's quite the non-sequiter. I made no claims about who invented what. If we were in Great Debates, I would have the advantage of you. Here I must content myself with pointing out that you failed to call me a scum-sucking bastard. :p

[Evil Captor]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]No, I am equating them.

If you will lie to get elected, you will lie to stay elected.

If you will lie about where your opponent stands, you will lie about where you stand.

If you will lie to me for my own good, you will keep lying for my own good. What am I supposed to do, assume that at some point you'll stop lying? When will that happen? It can't happen during the election, because you might lose. It can't happen after the election, because then you might not get re-elected. It can't happen after you've retired because the party is just so important. You say you want what's best for the average person, but you say that you're willing to lie. Are you lying now? How about now? Now?[QUOTE]

i take it you are new to politics ...

[Shodan]

Actually, Squink, I haven't seen anybody on this thread defending the truth of NARAL's assertions, which is what Pubbies typically do. We liberals, admitting that NARAL has stretched the truth fairly extensively, are just arguing that it's acceptable to use the Pubbies' own tactics against them. You see the difference?
Actually, I do see a difference.

If what you say is true - I grant you , a stretch - then Republicans are defending their propositions because they believe them to be true. Democrats, however, are defending the knowing use of lies and deception.

Congratulations. You just said that liberals are trolls.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Personally, I think that the Democrats' policy of avoiding assassination hasn't worked well over the past 10 years; nor has their policy of not rioting in the streets. Let's start killing our political enemies and ruling through mob violence!

Or we could continue to stick to our principles and try to find ethical means to win elections. I suspect that a creative ethical ploy will work much better than the transparently unethical ploy which you're espousing--or in your world is NARAL winning a lot of love for the Democratic Party?

Daniel

[John Mace]

That's quite the non-sequiter. I made no claims about who invented what. If we were in Great Debates, I would have the advantage of you. Here I must content myself with pointing out that you failed to call me a scum-sucking bastard. :p

It's a small point, really, but you did say "the Pubbie's own tactics", which sounded to me like you were saying they had attack ads patented or something. You certainly couldn't have meant that the Dems and their support organizations are strangers to these types of ads, because they clearly aren't. But the whole "10 years of honesty..." thing makes me wonder.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If anyone is interested, The Daily Show just ripped the shit out of that NARAL ad tonight. Who says they never go after liberals?

[Marley23]

Congratulations. You just said that liberals are trolls.
The aim of a troll, I thought, was to annoy people. Lying is lying.

[Wolfian]

If anyone is interested, The Daily Show just ripped the shit out of that NARAL ad tonight. Who says they never go after liberals?
Highlight: Using that logic if you bought Michael Jackson's "Thriller" in 1982 you support child molesting.

[Mr. Moto]

NARAL is pulling the ad. (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=42277)

Looks like pressure from honest people on all sides of the debate worked.

[beagledave]

NARAL is pulling the ad. (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=42277)

Looks like pressure from honest people on all sides of the debate worked.

Yeah they pulled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081200105.html) it because ...


"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.


No admission of lying.

[jsgoddess]

No admission of lying.

None of these organizations ever admits to lying. Pulling the ad is the best we can reasonably expect, I think. And they did pull it, which is more than I can say for some other orgs.

I'm extremely disappointed in them and in the Democrats who attempted--failed miserably, but attempted--to justify these attacks.

[Squink]

Looks like pressure from honest people on all sides of the debate worked.Plus, the brouhaha over the ad makes will make it more difficult for the administration to get a rubber stamp of approval for a right wing ideologue, if Robert's is a a right wing ideologue.
None of these organizations ever admits to lying.Let's wait for the results of Robert's slander suit before jumping to conclusions as to who is lying. He is filing suit isn't he?

[beagledave]

Let's wait for the results of Robert's slander suit before jumping to conclusions as to who is lying. He is filing suit isn't he?

So the Swifties never lied, right? For some reason I can't seem to find a link to Kerry's lawsuit..help a brother out?
:smack:

[Squink]

For some reason I can't seem to find a link to Kerry's lawsuit..The man was a wimp. His failure to address the swiftvet's vile accusations head on cost him the election. I hope Bush hasn't nominated a wimp to the supreme court, don't you?

[Mr. Moto]

Let's wait for the results of Robert's slander suit before jumping to conclusions as to who is lying. He is filing suit isn't he?

You are just about the dumbest poster I've seen here, ideology notwithstanding. And given some of the competition you've had over the years, that's saying quite a bit.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

To be fair, Mr. Moto, I recall thinking that you were posting some lame-ass partisan stuff in Great Debates a couple weeks ago; I'm not sure that squink's defense of NARAL here is any more irrationally partisan than your attacks on Air America were.

Daniel

[beagledave]

The man was a wimp. His failure to address the swiftvet's vile accusations head on cost him the election. I hope Bush hasn't nominated a wimp to the supreme court, don't you?

I noticed you punted..so I'll give you another chance.

You claim that we can't "jump to conclusions" about whether NARAL lied because Roberts hasn't sued yet.

Do you apply the same standard to whether the Swifties lied? IOW..since Kerry did not sue, we can't know if the Swifties lied?

[jsgoddess]

Let's wait for the results of Robert's slander suit before jumping to conclusions as to who is lying. He is filing suit isn't he?

Instead of insinuating something, how about you stand right up and declare exactly what you mean.

[Zeriel]

And the mainstream democrat base will vote for ... whom?

Badnarik or Nader. Or Bush.
Or a minor Dem candidate who doesn't lie like a fucking Rove-wannabe.

and the great liberal truth brigades start barking like Pavlov's dogs.

Blow it out your ass. A lie is a lie, regardless of who says it. NARAL and SBVFT are the same here--unsubstantiated bullshit, provably bullshit bullshit, and half-truths and innuendo.

And I'm not listening to either of them.

Honestly, if you're offended by the fact I'm calling bullshit on propoganda instead of supporting it just because it's supposedly 'liberal', get the FUCK out of my side of the political spectrum.

We liberals, admitting that NARAL has stretched the truth fairly extensively, are just arguing that it's acceptable to use the Pubbies' own tactics against them.

I'd like to remind everyone else that "we liberals" don't accept a word of NARAL's bullshit, although I won't speak for individual fascists who are pretending to be liberal.

[John Mace]

None of these organizations ever admits to lying. Pulling the ad is the best we can reasonably expect, I think. And they did pull it, which is more than I can say for some other orgs.

Absoultely. There's no point in trying to get any advocacy group to admit to "lying". Ain't gonna happen. The system, such as it is, seems to have worked well this time.

[El Zagna]

[Looks like pressure from honest people on all sides of the debate worked.Maybe, except for this little ditty from your cite:Conservatives and Roberts supporters have been calling all week for NARAL to pull the advertisement.By most measures I am a liberal, and certainly pro-choice, yet I have sent NARAL two scathing emails, one criticizing for the ad to begin with and another criticizing their disingenuous reason for pulling it. It's not just conservatives who are pissed and have demanded that the ad be pulled. I just wish the media would give us liberals credit for showing some principle.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Maybe, except for this little ditty from your cite...
...By most measures I am a liberal, and certainly pro-choice, yet I have sent NARAL two scathing emails, one criticizing for the ad to begin with and another criticizing their disingenuous reason for pulling it. It's not just conservatives who are pissed and have demanded that the ad be pulled. I just wish the media would give us liberals credit for showing some principle.
How is that disagreeing with what Moto said? You've shown that folks on the right (Roberts supporters) and folks on the left (yourself) exerted pressure; doesn't that constitute, more or less, all sides of the debate?

Daniel

[jsgoddess]

How is that disagreeing with what Moto said? You've shown that folks on the right (Roberts supporters) and folks on the left (yourself) exerted pressure; doesn't that constitute, more or less, all sides of the debate?

What Mr. Moto said was correct. The line from the cite only mentioned the right.

I imagine that it was the left's reaction that caused the ad to be pulled.

[El Zagna]

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with Moto but rather with the article's implication that only the right protested. I wasn't very clear. Sorry.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

No problem--I hadn't read the article, and was being both clueless and lazy. Thanks for the clarification!

Daniel

[Steve MB]

If you lie and cheat to try to swing moderates and dumbasses to your side, you are going to lose your mainstream democrat base
And the mainstream democrat base will vote for ... whom?
They'll think about that when they get to the polls.

If the line isn't too long.
And if it's not raining.
And if there's nothing good on TV that day.
And if they don't remember some errand.
And if....

[mks57]

Best case scenario here might be that the extreme Left learns the wrong lesson from losing the last couple of elections. Because with this kind of stuff from NARAL ("they started it! We get to lie too!"), the logical next step is for the left-wing extremists to try to engage in election fraud. Since, obviously, Bush and company did that too. Then they get caught (since conspiracy of the sort they so blithely assign to Karl Rove is virtually impossible to sustain), and some of the losers go to prison.


Next step? Election rigging is as American as apple pie, and it's a bipartisan pastime.

[Marley23]

No admission of lying.
Did you think they would? Doing so might have left them vulnerable to legal action.

[Squink]

Next step? Election rigging is as American as apple pie, and it's a bipartisan pastime.
GOP pays legal bills in vote-thwart case (http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/12362334.htm)The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.

[Marley23]

That's somewhat incriminating, Squink, but it's also a case of guilt-by-association, and even your quote note that it's someone accused of a crime.

[beagledave]

Did you think they would? Doing so might have left them vulnerable to legal action.

Nope..I was just putting their "ad pulling" in perspective.

They get more credit from me than the Swifties, but it's not like NARAL did anything honorable, either. They were becoming a liability to their cause and didn't have much choice at that point but to yank it.

They could have said that the debate over their ad was becoming a distraction and left it at that. To say "We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record" makes it sound like it's the fault of the viewers. Not exactly honest, either IMHO.

[beagledave]

GOP pays legal bills in vote-thwart case (http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/12362334.htm)

Hey Squink, do you have any intention of answering the question that I've asked of you..TWICE?

I'll refresh again from my earlier post...


I noticed you punted..so I'll give you another chance.

You claim that we can't "jump to conclusions" about whether NARAL lied because Roberts hasn't sued yet.

Do you apply the same standard to whether the Swifties lied? IOW..since Kerry did not sue, we can't know if the Swifties lied?


Yes or no, will you apply the same standard of "we don't really know if they lied, cuz there ain't been a libel suit" to the Swifities?

[Squink]

Hey Squink, do you have any intention of answering the question that I've asked of you..TWICE?Why would I? You just want to beat me with whatever answer I give. If you're going to play the avenging moralist, you'll have to work out the right answer on your own.

[beagledave]

Why would I? You just want to beat me with whatever answer I give. If you're going to play the avenging moralist, you'll have to work out the right answer on your own.

Wow..what a fucking coward you are.

You make the statement (unprovoked) ...


Let's wait for the results of Robert's slander suit before jumping to conclusions as to who is lying. He is filing suit isn't he?


It's obvious that your standard for judging these folks to be LYING depends on the outcome of a slander suit. Yet you won't use the same standard on a group that produced..errrr what was that phrase you used...Oh yes "vile accusations", because you're afraid that I'll "beat you with whatever answer you give"?


Lets see..so far in this one thread alone..You have

- defended liars
- deliberately distorted a cite that I used ( a form of lying, of course )
- Used a ridiculous standard to measure whether NARAL was lying (they're only LYING if they lose a slander suit) ..even though you won't use that SAME standard against people that spread "vile accusations"..ummm which are lies, right?
- Pussied out (twice) of answering a question about the above because your widdle feelings might get hurt.

What a lying coward you are.
:wally

[beagledave]

Actually I think I'll save that response..it makes a fantastic signature.
.
.
.
.

[beagledave]

Actually I think I'll save that response..it makes a fantastic signature.
.
.
.
.

Pretty much sums it all up nicely..doncha think?


--------------
beagledave:Hey Squink, do you have any intention of answering the question that I've asked of you?
Squink:Why would I? You just want to beat me with whatever answer I give. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6469033&postcount=156)

[Squink]

Yeah beagledave, Now you are masturbating like a motherFuck!
Enjoy yourself.

[beagledave]

Filed under "least surprising announcement of the day..."

Well at least we now know who the sacrificial lamb (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165589,00.html) at NARAL will be... ;)




---------------------------------
beagledave:Hey Squink, do you have any intention of answering the question that I've asked of you?
Squink:Why would I? You just want to beat me with whatever answer I give. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6469033&postcount=156)

[El Zagna]

Read all about it here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165589,00.html).
(David E. Seldin) the communications director of a major abortion-rights lobby group announced Friday that he was resigning immediately, following an announcement by the organization that it would pull an inflammatory TV ad about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

<snip>

He didn't say whether his resignation was tied to the move by NARAL on Thursday night to yank a commercial linking Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists.
Yeah, right. I'm sure the timing of his resignation was all just an awkward coincidence.

There is something I find quite interesting about all this, and that is the number of Democrats and liberals who are stepping forward to condem one of their own. There's a Fox video on the above linked page that comments more than once about the complaints that came "from across the political spectrum". It gives significant face time to Lanny Davis, a Clinton Deputy White House Counsel, who roundly criticises NARAL for the ad.

I don't remember seeing very many Republicans stepping forward to condem the Swifties. I'm sure there were some including our own Bricker , but nothing like what I'm seeing here.

Still, I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that liberals are just better people than conservatives; does it mean that liberals think too much; does it mean that liberals are clueless about winning at politics?

Here (javascript:videoPlayer('081205/sr_naral_engle_081205','NARAL%20Ad%20Pulled','Special_Report','acc','Politics','-1');), by the way, is the full link to the video, but it's javascript, so I'm not sure if it will actually work.

[beagledave]

Still, I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that liberals are just better people than conservatives; does it mean that liberals think too much; does it mean that liberals are clueless about winning at politics?


I have a couple of theories that I'll throw out. I'm not sure that I think they're great theories, but they're my initial thoughts.

1) The condemnations from prominent liberals did not come until the second day of this news cycle. I think it's possible that it became clear very early on, that the NARAL ad was not gaining any traction. Factcheck.org got on it the first day that news broke (I saw a link from blogdex..thats how I found out about it)

2) John Kerry was a politician running for office as opposed to a nominee. For better or worse, it's possible "attack ads" are more expected and accepted in that arena. Indeed, the Kerry camp was ALSO accused of running misleading ads. (see the archives (http://www.factcheck.org/archive.html) at factcheck.org).

3) The "truthfullness" of the Swift Boat ads is a bit tricker to piece out for many folks. For example..take a look at factcheck.org's analysis (http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html) of one of the ads. Notice the length and details and context that have to be explored, compared to the NARAL 30 second ad, where the "falsehoods" may have been easier (for some) to seize upon. To some extent, the Swift Boat ads gained some traction....for the target audience they built on existing fears that some had about Kerry. NARAL never gained traction with their ad.

I suppose it's possible to say, well libs/Democrats are just more honest than cons/Republicans when it comes to misdeeds done by their own. But if you're considering other reasons than that..I'd be interested in feedback on my theories (or other reasons you can come up with).

[Squink]

I don't remember seeing very many Republicans stepping forward to condem the Swifties. I'm sure there were some including our own Bricker , but nothing like what I'm seeing here.
Still, I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that liberals are just better people than conservatives; does it mean that liberals think too much; does it mean that liberals are clueless about winning at politics? There weren't very many, Bricker being an obvious exception. Whether liberals are 'better people' than conservatives or not, they certainly like to think that they are. That gives the conservatives a twofold advantage in that they can pull dirty tricks, and have many liberals shrug them off as expected behavior, and they can also point out liberal deviations from perfection, and know that many on the left will come down on even minor transgressions like a ton of bricks.

[Marley23]

How did we get to the topic of lawsuits in here? It's very hard for a public figure to successfully sue someone for libel or slander in this country, and that's by design. It also would've looked bad, but that's why Kerry didn't sue.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

It's possible that, while liberals on average don't have more integrity than conservatives on average, the current Democratic leadership has more integrity than the current Republican leadership. That's what I see as going on: the current Republican leadership has an extraordinary dearth of integrity, and so they refused to condemn lies that any halfway decent person would condemn.

Daniel

[Squink]

A Fatal Dose of Integrity: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201596.html) Democratic strategist Chris Lehane:
"we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome."

President Clinton:
"You can't blame your opponents for applying a strategy that beats your brains out," former president Bill Clinton said in a speech last month, in which he mocked Democrats for responding to attacks like Pavlov's dogs by saying, "Oh, how mean they are."
"You can't ask them to stop being mean to us," the former president said. "You've got to be tough enough to beat it."

[Shodan]

And, as ever, a thread about the lies spread by the Left turns ineluctably to attacks on Republicans.

You folks really are idiots, aren't you?

[El Zagna]

There may be something else going on here that keeps the NARAL ad and the Swiftie ads from making good comparisons to each other.

Most of us - apparently not all, but most - would agree that it is important to choose your battles carefully. The John Roberts nomination is not a smart battle to fight. Barring some shocking new revelation about the guy, he will be our next Supreme. Considering what we have come to expect from this administration, this guy is far better than anything I would have hoped for.

NARAL was just wasting good credibility ammunition on this useless fight. The Swifties, on the other hand, had a good reason to fire everything they had at Kerry.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

And, as ever, a thread about the lies spread by the Left turns ineluctably to attacks on Republicans.

You folks really are idiots, aren't you?You talkin about me here?
Daniel

[Evil Captor]

Actually, I do see a difference.

If what you say is true - I grant you , a stretch - then Republicans are defending their propositions because they believe them to be true. Democrats, however, are defending the knowing use of lies and deception.

Congratulations. You just said that liberals are trolls.

Regards,
Shodan

No, Republicans are defending lies they know to be lies, ferociously and irresponsibly, because they know that the Party line is more important than any mere objective standard of truth. They're like the old line Communists. Whatever the GOP/Moscow says is truth, is truth, whether you beleive it or not. If you think that's better than what the Dems are doing, congratulations, you're a Party member in good standing ... Republican or Communist, it's pretty much the same.

[Evil Captor]

Hopefully the Dems will follow standard Pubbie practices and find him a nice cushy job at some think tank or other.

Filed under "least surprising announcement of the day..."

Well at least we now know who the sacrificial lamb (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165589,00.html) at NARAL will be... ;)




---------------------------------
beagledave:Hey Squink, do you have any intention of answering the question that I've asked of you?
Squink:Why would I? You just want to beat me with whatever answer I give. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6469033&postcount=156)

[Evil Captor]

Read all about it here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165589,00.html). Yeah, right. I'm sure the timing of his resignation was all just an awkward coincidence.

There is something I find quite interesting about all this, and that is the number of Democrats and liberals who are stepping forward to condem one of their own. There's a Fox video on the above linked page that comments more than once about the complaints that came "from across the political spectrum". It gives significant face time to Lanny Davis, a Clinton Deputy White House Counsel, who roundly criticises NARAL for the ad.

I don't remember seeing very many Republicans stepping forward to condem the Swifties. I'm sure there were some including our own Bricker , but nothing like what I'm seeing here.

Still, I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that liberals are just better people than conservatives; does it mean that liberals think too much; does it mean that liberals are clueless about winning at politics?

Here (javascript:videoPlayer('081205/sr_naral_engle_081205','NARAL%20Ad%20Pulled','Special_Report','acc','Politics','-1');), by the way, is the full link to the video, but it's javascript, so I'm not sure if it will actually work.

It means a lot of liberals/Dems still wanna bring knives to a gun fight, which doesn't augur well for their chances in 2006.

[Evil Captor]

There weren't very many, Bricker being an obvious exception. Whether liberals are 'better people' than conservatives or not, they certainly like to think that they are. That gives the conservatives a twofold advantage in that they can pull dirty tricks, and have many liberals shrug them off as expected behavior, and they can also point out liberal deviations from perfection, and know that many on the left will come down on even minor transgressions like a ton of bricks.

Exactly right.

[beagledave]

...any mere objective standard of truth. .

I loves me a slice of irony pie.

__________
beagledave:Hey Squink, do you have any intention of answering the question that I've asked of you?
Squink:Why would I? You just want to beat me with whatever answer I give. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6469033&postcount=156)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Evil Captor, is it your assertion that the Democrats would have done better to stand by the NARAL ad?

Daniel

[Mr. Miskatonic]

A friend of mine, who until fairly recently worked for the local chapter of NARAL had this to say about the recent fiasco:

"MORONS!"

The national branch of NARAL presently has a rather bad reputation amongst the local branches.

[Shodan]

No, Republicans are defending lies they know to be lies, ferociously and irresponsibly, because they know that the Party line is more important than any mere objective standard of truth. Since this is pretty much exactly the opposite of whatever you driveled earlier, I will take it that my point penetrated, and at least reversed the jerk of your knee. Thus proving that you are not even a consistent idiot.

Incidentally, I should clarify that I wasn't calling you a troll earlier. FWIW, I believe you to be completely stupid; so completely as to really believe your own ludicrously lame hypocrisy. So you are not a troll. It would be difficult to believe that even someone like you could roll around in your own feces as consistently and enthusiastically as you do without honestly enjoying it.

Regards,
Shodan

[jsgoddess]

No, Republicans are defending lies they know to be lies, ferociously and irresponsibly, because they know that the Party line is more important than any mere objective standard of truth.

And so are you.

Can I call you a pinko now? That'd be fun.

[Apos]

This is modern partisan politics: NARAL basically has to keep their donors happy and riled up, runs stupid dishonest ad. Their donors are happy, and conservatives rally behind Roberts, whom many were starting to question as yet another possible wobbly justice. Everybody wins. Except America.

[Zeriel]

And, as ever, a thread about the lies spread by the Left turns ineluctably to attacks on Republicans.

You folks really are idiots, aren't you?
If you're referring to Evil Captor and Squink when you say that, I'll agree.

If you're referring to "all liberals", I'm afraid I'm going to have to challenge you to a duel. Oversized trout at three paces. Your choice of location.

[Apos]

And, as ever, a thread about the lies spread by the Left turns ineluctably to attacks on Republicans.

You folks really are idiots, aren't you?

This is a strange response. No one on the left really seems to be defending the ad, leaving not a lot to debate about the ad itself.

Given that most of us were quick to come out against the ad, and having little to debate on that front, it's not really all that surprising that the subject would turn towards misleading ads in general and who seems to make the most out of them and refuse to acknowledge their tactics. And on that front, I'd say that quick condemnations certainly beat out the pages long excuses that make you and Squink a pair, not Squink and all of us. No?

[Squink]

it's not really all that surprising that the subject would turn towards misleading ads in general and who seems to make the most out of them and refuse to acknowledge their tactics. And on that front, I'd say that quick condemnations certainly beat out the pages long excuses that make you and Squink a pair, not Squink and all of us. No?I'd've been shocked if the thread hadn't turned in that direction.
Course, now I've got to sit in a tree with Shodan.