NARAL’s new ad is simply despicable (here for the ad), and the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania tells us why:
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.
I defy anyone to find a more strongly worded condemnation by FactCheck, a group that, IMHO, really is as ‘fair and balanced’ as they come.
And see also this re: Planned Parenthood.
*** Update ***
Just got this e-mail from someone at Feminist.org:
You failed to mention that as Solicitor General, Roberts did not have to sign an Amicus brief siding with the violent extremists. This was a voluntary action and unique. The government did not have to weigh in at all. You had a federal judge who issued an injunction to keep the harassing protesters away from women trying to enter clincs. This was the only remedy at the time. Roberts advocated against the use of a federal civil rights statute to protect women seeking abortion services a form of discrimmination against women in his own words "even though only women can have abortions." His brief from the White House may have influenced the Supreme Court at thetime which decided 6 to 3 to let the protesters use extreme tactics. O'Connor dissented.
There are not many amicus briefs that I am aware of where the government sides voluntarily with a convicted clinic bomber, Michael Bray, who is also the leader of the domestic terrorist group "Army of God." Check with the FBI. Using Emily Lyons is justified. Her bomber, Eric Robert Rudolf is a self proclaimed Army of God member. (click June 9th press release) The Army of God first appeared on the anti-abortion scene in 1984 by Michael Bray and his first bombing of a clinic.
You may want to also check the amicus brief itself, Feminists for Life signed on too. Was Robert's wife on the board at that time or a member of FFL? I do not know. But if so, did her ideology influence her husband's voluntary participation in the amicus brief?
NARAL's ad is not misleading - it is right on target. Was Robert's decision to sign on the result of ideology instead of pragmatism? Ideology would explain the fact why this Supreme Court nominee blindly decided to voluntarily pursue this case and not check the backgrounds of the people he was defending.
I am not going to disclose the name, as it was private correspondence, but the letter is there for you to read. Personally, I don’t think there is anything misleading. A flat-out lie, sure. A smear? Absolutely. A weak attempt at guilt by association? You betcha.
But misleading? Not at all. The ad says exactly what they want it to say, and it is contemptible. And this letter is more of the same. I particularly enjoy her dragging Mrs. Roberts into this…
neil
From FactCheck.org:
Yes, they really said human flesh. This is not fair and balanced. This is nitpicking.
Zifnab
It’s mostly a ploy, from the way I see it. When you start having ads claiming that you support abortion clinic bombers run against you, it tends to force you out into the open on the issue. I don’t particularly like the tactic as it smacks of White House style “Tell them anything you want until they catagorically prove you wrong and then call the fact checkers lair” strategy. It’s a sleazy move, but we decended into sleazy politics a long time ago.
If Roberts comes out with a stance, an announcement, a statement, well… then the line of attack will just move. But if he stays silent, NARAL can just keep pounding away on this. You can either stay silent and let the charges stand (like Kerry did against the Swift Boat crew) or come out against it and catagorically deny the allegations, in which case you’ll have stepped squarely into the abortion issue.
BinkyBoy
FactCheck has not been fair and balanced since early 2000, sorry. I used to read them quite regularly, but their tactics have become quite conservative in recent years, forcing me to ignore most anything that originates from there.
neil
Which is just to say, I don’t think FactCheck is a helpful site for identifying ‘false implications.’ They, like Spinsanity, have a very low threshhold for outrage which makes it hard to separate the signal from the noise.
I said this in the last thread, but when the Republicans are running ads juxtaposing Howard Dean and Osama bin Laden, I just don’t have much outrage left for a 30-second ad which doesn’t explain that Michael Bray wasn’t the only petitioner in Bray v. Alexandria. How about this? It doesn’t seem that FactCheck had the time to point out that John Kerry’s Senate voting record didn’t cause 9/11.
Also: “The White House furnished a copy [of the document where Roberts condems bombers] to FactCheck.org.”
rilkefan
In any case, all the blog liberals I’ve read have denounced the ad.
jg
Dispicable but expected. Its the outrage thats funny. Pot meet kettle.
Defense Guy
Since I already dislike NARAL, I suppose my objection to this ad should not be seen as surprising. Those that will take the time to investigate the issue will know the truth, and those that don’t will be given a lie packaged as truth.
Kimmitt
Independently of the NARAL ad, Factcheck.org leans pretty hard right.
Anderson
Yeah, this stuff is going to backfire.
The Dems have to get their minds out of the rut they’re in, which is that abortion rights can only be protected by the Courts. If we have a good case on the issue, we need to take it to the people. If not, well, that should tell us something.
Doug
Fwiw, I haven’t seen the ad. Only the outrage about the ad. I’m shocked, shocked to hear of a disingenuous, simplistic, and misleading political ad.
Seems like wasted ammo to me, though. I don’t see NARAL derailing the Roberts nomination or even significantly bloodying the Republicans with this campaign. But, I don’t personally have a lot invested in the abortion issue, so maybe my perspective is off.
Mr Furious
Huh? “Roberts sided with the bomber, but…” That’s the defense?
I made my thoughts on this pretty clear yesterday before Defense Guy and I entered our own personal throwdown. NARAL is over the line. The ad is bullshit. BUT, Bush opens Roberts up to these attacks by nominating a mysterious (no trail) candidate and witholding as much info as he can.
So, NARAL=wrong. Roberts/Bush=not clean in this either.
DougJ
Rush did a great thing on NARAL yesterday. Percentage of NARAL who shave their legs: 2%. Percentage who belong to “covens”: 50%. Percentage who hate America: 100%.
Mr Furious
Fuck you and the fat fucking drug addict you rode in on.
DougJ
Sorry, Furious, if that teed you off. It sounded funnier the way Rush did it. It was a take-off on that Visa commercial that does the costs and then says “priceless” at the end.
Mr Furious
No prob. I’m just sick to death of the “hates america” bullshit. If Rush didn’t say it seriously every goddamn day, maybe he’d get a pass for cracking a joke once in a while. But since he leads the charge on that strategy… Fuck him. For your sake, I never really meant the “Fuck YOU”…
Rick
Sooo…you’re in NARAL, are you, Mr. Furious?
Cordially…
P.S. The Rush gag was funnier. No f***ing sh*t.
Mr Furious
No, not NARAL. And I actually object to the ad.
But I really am sick of the “liberals hate America” schtick. It’s fine for commenters here to tease each other (or John) with that line, but I find NO humor in it from an asshole like Limbaugh who makes it his stock in trade.
neil
Ha ha! Democrats sure do hate America! That Rush, he’s the funniest…
Defense Guy
No one has to listen to Limbaugh or Al Franken. If you decide that you want to, for whatever reason, you are not required to wear whatever dress they hold up for you. They are both entitled to their opinions, but it doesn’t mean they are correct.
Rick
…his stock in trade.
Rather, it’s filling a (lucrative) niche in the market. Like Cafe Press T-shirts (less so). And all these blogs (much, much less so. Except for A. Sullivan and his gold-plated bandwidth expenses).
One must get over it.
Cordially..
Rocky Smith
NARAL’s ad is a big lie. When Roberts “sided with the guy”, the guy hadn’t done any bombing yet. I seriously doubt he would support such actions. It serves NARAL for you to think so though. Fox news has nothing on NARAL for political slant.
The problem you democrats have is that it appears you hate everyone and every thing that isn’t you. I read one liberal’s comments about Bush which said that he actually held glee for the number of soldiers dieing in Iraq. Not that he didn’t care, but that he got some joy from it. How bent is that? Are there some of you who actually believe this cr*p? Even the centrists of this country will resent that kind of commentary. Keep it up if you want to lose again in the next election. Liars from BOTH SIDES need to be called on the carpet! Will CNN pull NARAL’s ad? Last I heard they are still running it- and you whine about FOX.
BumperStickerist
Per CNN’s BlogCoverage – 4:57 est
Re: The Roberts/NARAL ad
Clearly he must be stopped.
___________________________
ps. Clearly, the CNN BlogBabe wants John.
The sexual tension was palpable.
jg
They do have to be correct. People look to Rush to get the days ‘news’. Or they go to Fox to get ‘news’. Unless Fox or Rush correct the bullshit they spit out the day before the listeners think they were told the truth. Its part of the strategy. Control the message.
Buckaroo
Mr.Furious says:
Sorry dude, Rosie O’Donnell prefers women…
Bruce from Missouri
Wahhhhh!
Stop it!
Only us Conservatives are allowed to play dirty!
Mommy, the liberals hit me back!
mario
factcheck lost me a long time ago. No pedestal for them. Footstool maybe. A short one.
regardless, it does us no good when our rhetoric is as stupid and deceitful as the wingers. Naral did bad.
Rick
Now *that* is some serious Big Media BS. John is way eccentric.
Cordially…
P.S. I had no idea Limbaugh’s and Fox News’ audience was so colossal, what with all the cites from ostensibly unlikely listeners and viewers. Excellent; I love it when a plan comes together
BumperStickerist
Got to love smear campaigns that can’t be bothered to do two minutes of googling. It’ll take you longer to read this than it took to find it.
“google “feminists for life”
Hey! After looking past Kos’s crudesence there’s – Hey! – a website called ‘Feminists for Life’.
Click – asks for a password
delete the extra information to get to ‘feministsforlife.org’
Hey! There’s a search box
Search ‘roberts’ on feministsforlife’
Hey!
http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/index.htm
Jane Finch
It sounds like the majority of special interest advocacy spots from left and right that appear with numbing regularity during US elections.
The Raven
And lynchings were illegal under state law, too.
mario
well,
I’m ready to retract my earlier comment.
NARAL’s defense of the ad seems a helluva lot stronger than Factchuck’s attack.
Should have gone with my usual instinct – Factcheck sucks, and the liberal side is usually right.
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-naral-ad.html
Mr Furious
Kevin Drum has an interesting take on this here, and he offers up the ad NARAL should have run…
Mr Furious
HTML ate my conclusion:
Drum’s right. It would be more accurate and IMO more effective, but I can’t really claim it’s any more admirable…
Defense Guy
IMO Drum is wrong. His example is like saying that the nonviolent methods used by MLK somehow led inevitably to the violence later used by the Black Panthers.
rilkefan
Kleiman on Roberts and domestic terrorism against abortion providers.
Defense Guy
I wonder if kleiman can back up this assertation with facts, or if he feels the claim is enough. They claim to have been using non-violent civil disobediance at the time.
adk46er
The above statement is still not supported by the facts… Just because Mr. Drum believes Roberts ideology led him to excuse violence doesn’t make it so. I don’t think a reasonable person looking at the specifics of this case would come to that conclusion… Have any Democratic senators offered up their opinion of the ad? It would be interesting to know what Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy think of the ad.
Mike
“The above statement is still not supported by the facts… Just because Mr. Drum believes Roberts ideology led him to excuse violence doesn’t make it so. I don’t think a reasonable person looking at the specifics of this case would come to that conclusion… Have any Democratic senators offered up their opinion of the ad? It would be interesting to know what Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy think of the ad.”
Apparently Leahy has come out with a weasely statement saying “He wishes all Special Interest Groups would stop”.
All other Dems are apparently afraid to say anything at all. They know this thing is backfiring on the blithering idiots on the left, but they’re afraid of distancing themselves from for fear the Kos Klowns and their ilk come down on them.