NationStates Jolt Archive

So, this abortion rights group pulled it's anti-Roberts ad.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/11/naral.roberts/index.html

It would seem that the ad is somewhat less than truthful, and should be grounds for ditching the ad irregardless. But yeah, what's your opinion on this ad? I dunno, I think I'd far prefer something that would make me think rather than some random smear, don't you agree?

(May God, Buddha or Bob forgive me for the sin of starting a thread even somewhat related to abortion)

Placing an ad which is intended to scandalize or shock or polarize has the hazardous downside of alienating people from the very cause you're trying to support. This ad fell into that category. I'm glad it's gone.

That's not how you felt about those 'swift boat vets for hegemony', or whatever they called themselves, Eut.

I don't know how they thought they would get away with it. Although there are still people who buy into the Swift Boat Veterans wholesale, so I don't know. It seems like the right has a much better PR department to take care of stuff like this.

I don't know how they thought they would get away with it. Although there are still people who buy into the Swift Boat Veterans wholesale, so I don't know. It seems like the right has a much better PR department to take care of stuff like this.
Apparently so, Jah Bootie.

NARAL didn't pull the ad because of any factual incorrectness. In fact, they have released a point by point refutation of factcheck's supposed inconsistencies. It's available from a lot of places, but you can see it here (http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-naral-ad.html) at the blog Bitch Ph.D.

NARAL didn't pull the ad because of any factual incorrectness. In fact, they have released a point by point refutation of factcheck's supposed inconsistencies. It's available from a lot of places, but you can see it here (http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-naral-ad.html) at the blog Bitch Ph.D.
Now this I find interesting: The analysis, written by Matthew Barge, identified as a recent college graduate(1), is riddled with legal and factual errors and in many instances virtually mirrors the White House’s talking points.Sounds to me like he didn't earn that degree.

I, having neither broadband nor TV, never saw the ad, but from what I've heard of it I don't like it because it pitted those voters who believe strongly in free speech and protest against those who support a woman's right to choose, even though they're normally allies. And, like Bitch, PhD said, the ad started such a brouhaha that debate about Roberts himself was overshadowed. I would attribute that in large part to the ad's divisiveness.

I'm glad this inaccurate ad was pulled from the TV and a more accurate representation of Roberts can take place. The ad was riddled with factual discreprencies.

I, having neither broadband nor TV, never saw the ad, but from what I've heard of it I don't like it because it pitted those voters who believe strongly in free speech and protest against those who support a woman's right to choose, even though they're normally allies. And, like Bitch, PhD said, the ad started such a brouhaha that debate about Roberts himself was overshadowed. I would attribute that in large part to the ad's divisiveness.If it were only about free speech, I'd be right there with you. But Operation Rescue, especially in the time frame we're talking about here, was more than vocal. They vandalized abortion clinics, attacked and assaulted abortion clinic employees, doctors, and patients, and at times barricaded doctors in their cars so they couldn't go into the clinics. That's not freedom of speech anymore.

That's not freedom of speech anymore.
That's hate crime.

NARAL didn't pull the ad because of any factual incorrectness. In fact, they have released a point by point refutation of factcheck's supposed inconsistencies. It's available from a lot of places, but you can see it here (http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-naral-ad.html) at the blog Bitch Ph.D.
That's like saying, "Oh, you are so wrong about us and here's why!" Heh! Groan.

I'm glad this inaccurate ad was pulled from the TV and a more accurate representation of Roberts can take place. The ad was riddled with factual discreprencies.You know what bugs me about you? The fact that you make these sweeping statements and never back them up, as though you are the ultimate authority on all things political. I posted NARAL's refutation of the factcheck report. Debunk it, if you can.

I don't know how they thought they would get away with it. Although there are still people who buy into the Swift Boat Veterans wholesale, so I don't know. It seems like the right has a much better PR department to take care of stuff like this.
Apparently, there were enough people who bought it to give Bush the election. Not that Kerry did himself much of a favor by not responding to them strongly enough.

That's like saying, "Oh, you are so wrong about us and here's why!" Heh! Groan.
I'll tell you what I told Mesatecala--debunk it, if you can. They've provided multiple references.

On a personal note, how's the smoking battle going?

You know what bugs me about you? The fact that you make these sweeping statements and never back them up, as though you are the ultimate authority on all things political. I posted NARAL's refutation of the factcheck report. Debunk it, if you can.

What makes me want to accept your source over factcheck? You know what annoys me about you? You claim to support me on one issue, but everytime else you attack me for being a partisan. Please look at your own self.

It was my own freaking opinion. Sheesh. You have a problem with that? Well that's your issue.

If it were only about free speech, I'd be right there with you. But Operation Rescue, especially in the time frame we're talking about here, was more than vocal. They vandalized abortion clinics, attacked and assaulted abortion clinic employees, doctors, and patients, and at times barricaded doctors in their cars so they couldn't go into the clinics. That's not freedom of speech anymore.
That's terrorism, and it's ironic that many of the same people who support the War on Terror also support this brand of homegrown terror.

That's not how you felt about those 'swift boat vets for hegemony', or whatever they called themselves, Eut.
Totally different sort of approach. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were criticising a fellow veteran about whom they knew a lot. The abortion rights group were attacking a nominee for the Supreme Court about whom they knew next to nothing except that he was a Republican and had been proposed by President Bush.

That's terrorism, and it's ironic that many of the same people who support the War on Terror also support this brand of homegrown terror.
That's because Fear is currency. Brought to you by _______(fill in the blank).

What makes me want to accept your source over factcheck? You know what annoys me about you? You claim to support me on one issue, but everytime else you attack me for being a partisan. Please look at your own self.

It was my own freaking opinion. Sheesh. You have a problem with that? Well that's your issue.I do support you on one issue, and our disagreement on virtually everything else doesn't change that. As far as why you ought to accept the NARAL response over factcheck, well, maybe it has something to do with NARAL putting together a timeline, complete with references not only from news reports, but from Supreme Court and lower court decisions, while factcheck got basic information wrong.

You're welcome to your opinion--I'm allowed to point out where it's weak. The reverse is also true, of course.

You know what bugs me about you? The fact that you make these sweeping statements and never back them up, as though you are the ultimate authority on all things political. I posted NARAL's refutation of the factcheck report. Debunk it, if you can.
Nazz, you do the very things about which you accuse others. I seem to remember you, among many others on here, using Factcheck to "prove" that the administration had never had any evidence of WMDs to justify using it as a reason to attack Iraq. Now, because you don't like their findings on this issue, they're full of shit? What's wrong with this picture?

Like they say, "It all depends upon whose ox is being gored."

Nazz, you do the very things about which you accuse others. I seem to remember you, among many others on here, using Factcheck to "prove" that the administration had never had any evidence of WMDs to justify using it as a reason to attack Iraq. Now, because you don't like their findings on this issue, they're full of shit? What's wrong with this picture?

Like they say, "It all depends upon whose ox is being gored."
If you can find a post where I cited factcheck as a source for my point of view, then link to it and call me a hypocrite. I don't use them because they're shoddy, even when they support my point of view.

But even if I had cited them before, that still wouldn't excuse their laziness on this one. NARAL busted them--look at the list of citations at the end of that refutation, follow them, they're clickable.

I do support you on one issue, and our disagreement on virtually everything else doesn't change that. As far as why you ought to accept the NARAL response over factcheck, well, maybe it has something to do with NARAL putting together a timeline, complete with references not only from news reports, but from Supreme Court and lower court decisions, while factcheck got basic information wrong.


I'm neutral on abortion. I'm personally don't like the idea, but it isn't my body. I'm just saying people have to stop spreading BS about Roberts, because he is the most sensible choice Bush could of picked. Now would you agree on that? He's a guy who does his job when asked (he even helped gay rights). He's a professional, and I'd almost compare him to my dad (ironically they have the same hair cut and are the same age). My dad doesn't let political views get in the way of his work (he works for the US gov).

I'm neutral on abortion. I'm personally don't like the idea, but it isn't my body. I'm just saying people have to stop spreading BS about Roberts, because he is the most sensible choice Bush could of picked. Now would you agree on that? He's a guy who does his job when asked (he even helped gay rights). He's a professional, and I'd almost compare him to my dad (ironically they have the same hair cut and are the same age). My dad doesn't let political views get in the way of his work (he works for the US gov).If you're right, and that's who Roberts really is, then I don't have a problem with his position on the court. But this kind of stuff has to come out between now and the confirmation vote, and to be honest, I'm in no particular hurry, because O'Connor has said her retirement starts when her replacement is confirmed. If Roberts doesn't want to answer questions, or if the White House won't release documents relating to Roberts' previous work, then I have no problem with holding him up for a long time.

If you're right, and that's who Roberts really is, then I don't have a problem with his position on the court. But this kind of stuff has to come out between now and the confirmation vote, and to be honest, I'm in no particular hurry, because O'Connor has said her retirement starts when her replacement is confirmed. If Roberts doesn't want to answer questions, or if the White House won't release documents relating to Roberts' previous work, then I have no problem with holding him up for a long time.

I think supporting to hold him up would demonstrate how much of a partisan you are.

If you're right, and that's who Roberts really is, then I don't have a problem with his position on the court. But this kind of stuff has to come out between now and the confirmation vote, and to be honest, I'm in no particular hurry, because O'Connor has said her retirement starts when her replacement is confirmed. If Roberts doesn't want to answer questions, or if the White House won't release documents relating to Roberts' previous work, then I have no problem with holding him up for a long time.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Only in recent history has an opposition party taken the position that they would stonewall a President's nominees for high office simply because they suspected the nominee wouldn't support their own version of the law.

It's little more than obstructionism, pure and simple. It's the political equivalent of "play the game by my rules, or I'm going to take my marbles and go home."

Im glad they pulled it. It was a misleading ad. You usually see these misleading type of tactics from the right when arguing against organizations like the ACLU. They will trumpet about claims that the ACLU supports neo-nazis and pedophiles because they have taken their side in civil liberties cases. It is interesting to see a group on the left fall back to this same smear tactic. Im glad they pulled it and I wish all misleading advertisements were pulled.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. Only in recent history has an opposition party taken the position that they would stonewall a President's nominees for high office simply because they suspected the nominee wouldn't support their own version of the law.

It's little more than obstructionism, pure and simple. It's the political equivalent of "play the game by my rules, or I'm going to take my marbles and go home."I'm sorry Eutrusca, but you're mistaken on this. The first federal judge to be rejected by the Senate was put forward by George Washington. The Constitution says the Senate shall provide advice and consent on judicial nominations, and that doesn't mean rolling over for the President--that means the Senate has a duty to examine the nominee carefully and determine whether or not that candidate is suitable. In recent years, when Clinton was president, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, had no problem bottling up nominees and refusing to let them come to the floor for a vote. How is what the Democrats might do--and we're a long way from anything being certain yet--any different?

Or is this one of those "it's okay if you're a republican" situations?

I think supporting to hold him up would demonstrate how much of a partisan you are.
I've never claimed to be anything else. What's your point?

I'm sorry Eutrusca, but you're mistaken on this. The first federal judge to be rejected by the Senate was put forward by George Washington. The Constitution says the Senate shall provide advice and consent on judicial nominations, and that doesn't mean rolling over for the President--that means the Senate has a duty to examine the nominee carefully and determine whether or not that candidate is suitable. In recent years, when Clinton was president, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, had no problem bottling up nominees and refusing to let them come to the floor for a vote. How is what the Democrats might do--and we're a long way from anything being certain yet--any different?

Or is this one of those "it's okay if you're a republican" situations?
The operant word in your post is "rejected." The new twist the liberals have added to the process is to simply stonewall ... no vote, up or down, just no action whatsoever. It's stonewalling, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with the "adivse and consent" clause in the Constitution.

The operant word in your post is "rejected." The new twist the liberals have added to the process is to simply stonewall ... no vote, up or down, just no action whatsoever. It's stonewalling, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with the "adivse and consent" clause in the Constitution.
It has everything to do with advise and consent--at least, it did when the republicans were in the minority and used all sorts of archaic rules to hold up nominations. Do you know what blue-slipping is? It's the rule that said both Senators from the state where a nominated judge lived had to approve of the nomination, or it would be held up indefinitely. One Senator could hold up a judge's appointment, with no argument, no discussion, just because he or she was pissed off. That rule was removed the second the Republicans took power in the Senate, even though they'd made extensive use of it while they were in the minority.

But I guess that's okay if you're a republican.

Here's yet another article about this ad:

A Bad Ad (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/opinion/13sat2.html?th&emc=th)

Printer-Friendly
Published: August 13, 2005

Under pressure, Naral Pro-Choice America has withdrawn a cheesy 30-second TV spot unfairly linking Judge John Roberts Jr. with abortion clinic violence. But the episode's sour taste lingers, and it can only make it harder to get senators to pay proper attention during the Supreme Court confirmation process to legitimate concerns about Judge Roberts's approach to issues of personal privacy and reproductive freedom.

The advertisement in question focused on an argument that Mr. Roberts made to the Supreme Court in an abortion-related case in the early 1990's, when he was the principal deputy solicitor general in the administration of the first President George Bush. At issue was whether a Reconstruction-era civil rights law originally intended to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan could be invoked by federal courts to support injunctions against the increasingly frequent and violent demonstrations being staged to block access to abortion clinics.

Mr. Roberts and other administration lawyers argued that the statute did not apply to the clinic protests. It was a tenable if unduly cramped reading of the law, shared by a 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court, that the media geniuses at Naral took as license to try to tar Judge Roberts as a defender of clinic violence. "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," the announcer intones at the ad's close, ignoring, among other things, Mr. Roberts's statement during oral arguments that the administration was not trying to defend the demonstrators' conduct, which he noted was illegal under state law.

In withdrawing the ad, Naral's president, Nancy Keenan, said that the controversy sparked by the ad had "become a distraction" from the group's effort to educate the public. Lamentably, her statement stopped short of apologizing to Judge Roberts, and to Americans of all ideological stripes who are hoping for a confirmation process at once vigorous and informed. If Naral wants to regain credibility, it should start there.

Placing an ad which is intended to scandalize or shock or polarize has the hazardous downside of alienating people from the very cause you're trying to support. This ad fell into that category. I'm glad it's gone.

I wish they had left it up for awhile longer, but either way it serves only to expose these people for what they really are and what they stand for. Once these special interest groups have completely discredited themselves and what's left of the democratic party, only then can it be rebuilt, and re-establish it's values as those of the vast middle class in America. Hopefully by then, they will have learned that catering to special interest groups must be avoided at all cost. Another bad week for those without ethics. Yay!