I guess NARAL needs to spend all the money they raised based upon SC nominee battles on something. This ad seems completely over the top.
Will anyone here actually defend it? Just curious.
Ha, I bet someone thought I’d defend NARAL (which by the way, is the WORST name ever, geez).
Do you have a link to the ad? I haven’t seen it yet.
Without seeing it, I’m pretty confident I disagree with them, but might be able to defend maybe one or two aspects of their views/statements.
EDIT: I can’t spell.
I don’t have a link to the actual link, but here is a pretty decent report on the ad:
Geez a political ad that may not be 100% true…kinda like the ones karl Rove designed saying Max Cleland was not a true patriotic American and a sympathizer of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
Help me out here. Was that a yes, or a no?
Well Art how can I give you a yes or a no unilt I’ve seen the thing?
I’ll reserve judgement just like you should do.
I thought you were a political junkie. What kind of junkie are you? Get out there and see the damn thing and chime in here with some inflamatory opinions.
What do you do, work for a living or something?
But Clinton got a blow job in the oval office!!!
I’ve seen the ad and heard some commentary on it. From what I gather, it is a bit misleading. Supposedly, the case for which Roberts filed an amicus brief as Deputy Solicitor didn’t deal with violent protesters, but rather the application of a specific anti-KKK law to “peaceful” sit ins in front of abortion clinics. I heard the former head of Planned Parenthood speak about it. Her view is that at that point in time, when Roberts participated in the case, these so-called peaceful protests were anything but and were highly intimidating(intentionally so and especially in light of some of the bombings at clinics). As such, they weren’t peaceful.
So the ad is misleading, but I wouldn’t call it over the top vis-a-vis other political ads.
By the way, the most amusing new development in the Roberts confirmation is the fact that he worked pro bono on behalf of gay activist groups in Romer v. Evans while at Hogan and Hartson. One right wing group has already withdrawn support for him as a result.
Gasp. Those abortion protesters were breaking all those other laws, but I am sure they would never have broken the KKK law if they thought it applied to them.
Pretty funny actually. SC agreed 6-3.
Gasp. Those abortion protesters were breaking all those other laws, but I am sure they would never have broken the KKK law if they thought it applied to them.
???
I just get a kick out of people who get passionate about trying to apply a ninth law to people who are already breaking eight others. Gee, do you really think that ninth law will make a difference?
It reminds me of the outrage against Bush for not supporting a hate crime law in Texas motivated by the three men who dragged a black man to death. I guess the two death penalty and one life imprisionment sentence just wasn’t severe enough. If only there had been a hate crime law, presumably the murders would have never dared to violate that statute.
OK, gotcha.
Anyway, I haven’t seen the ad, but from the descriptions and from what I read here (http://factcheck.org/article340.html) I’m thinking this add is over the top and misleading.
Yes, the whole gay rights thing shocked me too. To think that Roberts actually worked for a major law firm that had actual clients on whose behalf he worked. I am bracing for the hearings in which I fear the fact that he got paid money for doing work for those clients will be shockingly revealed.
Judging from their website I put NARAL in the same category as the Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry group. While I am pro-choice, it’s pretty obvious the site tries to make its point by leaving out the finer details. Even if they are correct, how can I trust what they are saying when its so obvious they are conciously taking situations out of context? Even their downloadable “factsheets” are heavy on rhetoric at the expense of reason and facts. Most of the website can be summed up as:
George Bush = bad/anti-choice
While this may be true, their lack of clear rational matches the things I hate about most conservative sites. Its the same crap as the common Limbaughesque talking points- they appeal only to people who don’t want to take the time to think. When you take this step out it becomes just propoganda for idiots eat up.
Do I defend it?
No way…bullshit is bullshit no matter how hard you try to spin it.
What strikes me about the whole nomination is that people are against this guy at all. (I hate to catetgorize and use the L word) He seems pretty middle of the road. What will happen when everyone screams and he withdraws. Who is up next.
He seems like a good candidate for everyone. Am I missing something?
You are missing that various groups raised millions of dollars to play in the SC nomination game. Now they have to spend it.
Most of these special interest battles are just about fundraising. Do you actually think anyone gives a damn about a random Appeal Court judge? It is all about money.
That is sad 
.
Art, he worked pro bono on the case. He had to go out of his way to do the work on the case, it wasn’t a matter of someone approaching the firm and the firm assigning him to work on their case. So save your sarcasm.