quote: CABLE CONTROVERSY: CNN AGREES TO AIR BLOODY ABORTION AD ON JUDGE ROBERTS Tue Aug 09 2005 19:41:54 ET
CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted clinic bomber!
The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic.
The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing.
The linking of Roberts to "violent fringe groups" is the sharpest attack against the nominee thus far.
However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be “false.”
Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false."
The Republican National Committee is preparing to send a letter to television stations asking them to pull the spot, according to sources.
The RNC’s letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people."
posted
Please don't go all ballistic, I wasn't really saying that one flaw makes all the others ok...I just find it funny when a uber-spin ass makes a big deal out of someone else doing what they do on a regular basis...like they have a patent on lying.
Everyone knows that LAWYERS have that patent, right Dag? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typical. Can’t stay on topic. Have to try and change the subject and say well they did it worse. So… let’s get back to the subject matter at hand. If we want to talk about those other things why not start that thread.
NARAL is lying flat out. How is Drudge spinning that? All he did was report what CNN is doing with this ad that NARAL is running.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Since when does Drudge hand out the props to Factcheck? They've been sharply critical of his website multiple times in the past, and he's never seemed to care before.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Typical. Can’t stay on topic. Have to try and change the subject and say well they did it worse.
Um. . . yeah, welcome to the forum. Topic drift is a frequent occurence. Get used to it. Go with the flow, baby.
What exactly is there to discuss? I don't like NARAL, and I expect this type of behavior from them. So far, nothing to get riled up about for me. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone knows that LAWYERS have that patent, right Dag?
No, lawyers have the patent on showing how one tiny difference between two situations demonstrates that entirely different legal principles apply to each.
We do this so we don't have to lie. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Jay, back off a bit, I did mention that nothing excuses this type of behavior from either camp.
You constantly make excuses for your party all the time, when appropreate of not, so please don't lecture me about topic drift.
I don't like your source, plain and simple. Even the National Inquirer gets a news story right once and a while, but that doesn't make it a decent paper...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kewa I didn’t mean to sound like I’m jumping all over you. I don’t mean it that way. I know you don’t like Drudge. Hence why I didn’t mention Drudge. But I guess since you frequent it you knew the story. I hear all this criticism of Drudge all the time, nonetheless have yet to see him get a story wrong (I’m sure you’ve got something in the back burner for this, but whatever thing it is, he beaks the news). Heck, most of his stories are just links to other stuff anyway. He’s always putting stuff up that looks bad for the GOP too, so I’m really confused on why he’s so despised. I guess I just expected more criticism of blatantly lying false ads.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, all it seems today is just throw as much dirt at whatever is in front of you to see what sticks.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He’s always putting stuff up that looks bad for the GOP too, so I’m really confused on why he’s so despised.
Probably because he constantly tries to put up stuff that makes everyone look bad.... There's a difference between reporting a scandal and trying to create a scandal.
quote:I guess I just expected more criticism of blatantly lying false ads.
I'd bet it's because almost all political ads give blatantly false impressions. That's not really big news - it'd be like saying "Karl Rove assigns false motives to Democrats!" and trying to suggest it is a breaking scandal. Not that it's okay that ads are like this.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course it turns out that the woman denies it ever happened, Kerry denies it ever happened, and there was never any evidence from anyone to say otherwise! Some scandal. Some excellent reporting there .
The Drudge report is crap, and I'm always disappointed to see it linked to from hatrack.
Edit: Especially since the last time I saw it linked to from here, it was some story about some dude overhearing a couple cell phone conversations that some key democrats were making. Apparently having these secret strategy conversations in front of random strangers .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and longtime Naral supporter, sent a letter on Wednesday to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its ranking Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, respectively. Mr. Dellinger said he had disagreed with Mr. Roberts's argument in the Bray case but considered it unfair to give "the impression that Roberts is somehow associated with clinic bombers." He added that "it would be regrettable if the only refutation of these assertions about Roberts came from groups opposed to abortion rights."
quote:Conservative activist Eugene Delgaudio knows how to seize a political moment when he sees one.
To mark the anniversary of Chappaquiddick, Delgaudio, a Loudoun County supervisor by day, hosted a march on Capitol Hill of people in bathing suits calling themselves the "Ted Kennedy Swim Team."
At a gay rights march in Washington, he set aside a "Sodomy Free Zone" and, at the Democratic convention, he hosted a "Man-Donkey Mock Wedding Ceremony."
Way back in 1987, in support of Robert H. Bork's Supreme Court nomination, he sponsored "Criminals Against Bork," a group of actors dressed as thugs who cheered Democrats for opposing the nominee.
But in front of the Supreme Court yesterday, Delgaudio turned his flamboyant protest on one of his own: John G. Roberts Jr., a conservative judge tapped by a conservative president for the high court.
"Judge Roberts assisted the forces that would criminalize Christianity," Delgaudio shouted toward a clump of two dozen journalists and a similar number of tourists, many wearing orange "Old Town Trolley" stickers. Calling on President Bush to withdraw the nomination, Delgaudio, president of a group called Public Advocate of the United States, demanded: "How can you assist the forces that we consider anti-morality and still claim to be on the side of God?"
quote: But what Roberts was supporting wasn't violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn't be used against abortion blockaders because they weren't discriminating against women – they were blockading men, too.
I rather like Roberts' position on this particular case. Blockading the clinic isn't discrimination, but it's illegal anyway because its trespassing. It doesn't seem like his statements in that case show him as either pro-life or pro-choice.
posted
Jay, it is OK, I didn't REALLY think you were jumping one me about this all that hard.
In case you haven't noticed, despite our first few "conversations" about politics we don't disagree on everything. On a lot of things we do, but it tends to be a matter of methods rather than substance on a few things at least. I can't stand people who bash our troops, although I don't see true critiques of this administration as an attack on them....I think that since we are involved over there we should do the job properly rather than pull out right away....
My personal views on abortion are similar to yours, as JenniK and I would never even consider having one unless it was necessary to save her life...
I am not a liberal, I am actually fairly conservative in my personal views about quite a few things. However, I don't believe in following ANY party line, I prefer to consider each topic myself and come to a conclusion on my own, after looking at BOTH sides (or all of them if there are more than two) fairly.
I dislike Drudge because he seems to be more interested in tooting his own horn and causing scandels than in actually reporting the news. He articles have repeatedly been shown to have MAJOR flaws in both their substance in and their research, and I don't consider him a reporter any more than I consider Rikki Lake or Jerry Springer one.
As a matter of fact that is what he is to me...the Jerry Springer of news.
I agreed with you about this topic, remember? That was my main point, one I think you might have overlooked. I so find it ironic that the people who used there tactics to win the last two elections are now crying foul, but when either party does this it offends me.
I am glad to see that some people on BOTH sides of the political fence are refuting these clams though. The thing that worries me most about Roberts is his relative lack of experience as a judge. I expect to hear some really probing questions during the hearings, and until I hear his answers to those questions I am reserving judgment.
That is only fair, I think... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I don't know if he won that case, but as only women can get abortions that argument falls flat for me. They may have been blocking access to that building for both sexes, but thaeir prupose in doing so was to stop women from having abortions....not to stop men from haviign them as well.
posted
I take it from factcheck that he did win, if not the original case than when it went to the Supreme Court. I admit I'm rather curious as to whether the protesters actually would have bloked a lone male from going into the abortion clinic. Probably would have, on the theory that he worked there.
I don't agree with the protesters, and as has been previously stated: what they were doing was illegal. But I do think public protests are an important part of American political discourse, and I'd hate to see other protesting groups charged based on their "purpose" instead of on their actions.
quote:We sincerely share your hope that the upcoming Senate hearings will be a fair, thorough and serious examination of John Roberts' legal philosophy and his views on significant constitutional issues. We also regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record.
This week, we began a television advertising campaign aimed at focusing greater public attention on an important aspect of Mr. Roberts' record. Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public.
Therefore, we are changing from our current advertisement...
So kudos to them for changing the add. Boos to them for doing so only because it's a distraction. And questioning of their perceptiveness to them for thinking people "misconstrued" their ad.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was all set to compliment NARAL for recognizing their mistake, but is doesn't look like they actually did so:
I find the "never admit your mistakes in public" norm in politics so bizarre. I wonder if it was ever OK for a president, senator or activist to say that he's changed his mind about something.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
