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.
BTW…if you haven’t actually seen the 30 second ad yet…amuse (or disgust) yourself here
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.)
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?
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:
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?
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?
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?
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.
“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.”
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?
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).
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:
A few, perhaps overly broad words on a 30 second TV spot is not.
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.