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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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[sup]*[/sup] we might have a better working relationship with each other. YMMV
[sup]*[/sup]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.
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.
Spouse cheating? Little late to drag Clinton into it, isn’t it?
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?
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 ® after his name.
