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.
{snip}
That route not working really well? Time to borrow a page from the Swift Boat Vets playbook…
Howzabout flat out lying in an attack ad?
The stench of political desperation is not a pretty thing.
Truly ugly. NARAL is not simply shading the truth here. They are out-and-out lying.
How repulsive.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 is far-right.
I’d say about 33 minutes.
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.
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
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
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?
The whole sentence, and the following one, from beagledave’s cite:
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
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.
These one trick pony organizations really start to bore me after a while.
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?
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.