NYT: NARAL TV Ad Attacking Court Nominee Provokes Furor

[DeepModem Mom]

TV Ad Attacking Court Nominee Provokes Furor
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: August 11, 2005


WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - An advertisement that a leading abortion-rights organization began running on national television on Wednesday, opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as one "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," quickly became the first flashpoint in the three-week-old confirmation process.

Several prominent abortion rights supporters as well as a neutral media watchdog group said the advertisement was misleading and unfair, and a conservative group quickly took to the airwaves with an opposing advertisement.

The focus of the 30-second spot, which Naral Pro-Choice America is spending $500,000 to place on the Fox and CNN cable networks, as well as on broadcast stations in Maine and Rhode Island over the next two weeks, is on an argument in an abortion-related case that Judge Roberts made to the Supreme Court in the early 1990's, when he was working in the first Bush administration as the principal deputy solicitor general.

The question before the court was whether a Reconstruction-era civil rights law intended to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan could provide a basis for federal courts to issue injunctions against the increasingly frequent and violent demonstrations that were intended to block access to abortion clinics....

***

According to Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania that monitors political advertisements and speeches for accuracy, "the ad is false" and "uses the classic tactic of guilt by association."...As the Factcheck critique began to be trumpeted by conservative groups early Wednesday, Naral prepared a rebuttal of what it called "glaring errors" in the organization's analysis....Within the larger liberal coalition of which Naral is a part, there was considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of other groups generally refused to speak on the record....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11abort.html?ei=5094&en=a3c0f2b1d2f8f03f&hp=&ex=1123732800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1123732910-qelTxyvPW8Ti/fEChH46vQ

[seriousstan]

1. I remember first hearing about Factcheck.org back about Limbaugh

I have used them since and they have always been very balanced in their analysis. Has this changed?

[BrklynLiberal]

2. For people who don't give a damn about the truth when it comes to speaking

it about others they are sure sensitive about the finest, most subtle points of it being spoken about them... Damn Repukes!
After all the lies and misleading stories they have spouted about every one who opposed them they have some nerve crying foul about a story that may not represent the absolute "essence" of the truth as they want it to be reported.

What Hypocrites! :puke:

I hope NARAL does not back down!!!!

EDIT: Look at all the bullshit that is being spouted right now about Cindy Sheehan!!!!

[Sgent]

3. Is NARAL

becoming PETA? Say anything, do anything to get their way? It sure looks like it.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Did you read the article before making that statement?

:think:

[Sgent]

9. Yep

From the article.

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."

[BlueIris]

8. Oh, shame on NARAL. Protecting crucial civil liberties. SHAME!

How terrible it will be if NARAL and pro-choice voters get "their" way on this one (read: the sane, non-misogynist, pro-adequate-medical-care-for-women-AND-their-partners "believers"' way).

[madeline_con]

4. I'll say one thing...

As litigious as RWers are, if the ad contained slander or libel, they'd sue. They haven't.

[question everything]

10. Yet n/t

[Caleb]

5. So, is Factcheck.org right?

Is NARAL putting out an erroneous ad?

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Read the NYTimes article and make your own decision.

from what I read, the ad is not the least bit misleading. He voted with the minority that said it is ok for people to harrass those going to women's health care clinics.
Several people who were convicted of bombing a clinic had been convicted previously of being part of groups that been harrassing women who were trying to get into women's health clinics.

[Skip Intro]

11. a freeper threw factcheck.org at me re: bush and the Niger Uranium

It basically said that bush didn't lie in the SOTU when he said "Brittish" intel said Iraq was persuing uranium, soley because he said "Bittish" - even though his own intel had told him the claim against Iraq wasn't backed up by the facts.He clearly mislead, which is equivalent to lying,, but this factcheck.org peice said he told the truth.

Now this.

The site smells to me.

[MisterP]

13. the Tin Man threw that site out, or tried to--gave a Soros site instead

[seriousstan]

14. Give me a link. I just searched for your claim and got squat.

I am sure you must be better at this than I.

I repeat my previous post......I remember first hearing about Factcheck.org back about Limbaugh. I have used them since and they have always been very balanced in their analysis. Has this changed?

[Skip Intro]

15. just tellin' ya what I know

I'll get the link for you

[seriousstan]

16. Thanks

[Skip Intro]

17. LINK!!!!!!!!!!! The one the freeper threw at me, as I said.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

snip:

-----------------------

Analysis

The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.

-----------------------

and they're full of it, the CIA had warned bush the allegation wasn't backed up by the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3908733

[hunter]

30. factcheck can ignore the elephants in the room just as well as snopes.

Feed a ferret some truth serum and put it up on a pedestal, and you get factcheck.org.

Snopes is more like one of those miniature dobermens, "minpins," I think they call them.

Did the New York Times actually quote factcheck like that? That seems so weird to me, like I'm watching a grand old lady of journalism's credibility bleed slowly out onto the floor.

[usregimechange]

12. The truth is plenty damaging enough.

[SuperWonk]

18. All I know...

Is that they could have spent that $500K in a much wiser way.

Why do we do this to ourslves?

[DeepModem Mom]

19. You know, SuperWonk, that's a good point. nt

[saigon68]

20. ROBERTS IS SCUM

[SuperWonk]

21. Yet NARAL makes him come out smelling like roses...

Somebody please tell them to pick one side or the other. Right now I can't tell which one they are on.

[MrBenchley]

24. How do you figure that?

The sumbitch CHOSE to jump in to a case and argue on the side of the criminals...he should get called on it.

[sendero]

22. Is this "false" as in...

.... Bush's 16 words or "false" like the Swift Boat crew?

Frankly, NARAL's position involves making a judgement call. It is impossible to call it "true" or "false".

I do know this much, the Republicans air ads more misleading than this every single election. They are hypocrites as usual.

My personal opinion is that the ad is a little over the top. After SBVT, there is no fucking top, who's to blame for that.

I also think that this ad will have nothing to do with stopping any confirmation, but upon further reflection I believe it is designed to put them on the defensive on the issue. A "warning shot across the bow" if you will. And I think that is a good strategy.

[yorkiemommie1]

23. kyra philips of cnn was interviewing brooks jackson of Factcheck.org

just now and she was DESPERATELY trying to spin him rightwards. She kept trying to make him admit that ' there have to be laws against ' false advertising', and ' oh, there's no governmental protection ' against false advertising.

he was steadfast in saying that it's freedom of speech and everybody should make up their own mind.

i wonder if philips applies such stringent standards to any of the WH propaganda that comes out?

I'll just have to ask her.

[SuperWonk]

26. Great question....

And regarding this ad, I agree that people should make up their own minds. As you can see from my posts, I have a strong opinion on the matter.

[Demeter]

25. As Long As It Gets Press, Do I Care If It's Accurate?

Nope! I'm taking the GOP route here--all slander, all the time. The best thing is, with BushCo BFEE, you don't have to lie to slander anyone. The truth is more than sufficient to show them up as mean, ignorant crooks.

[NashVegas]

27. Did I Miss NYT "Swift Boat Vets Ad Provokes Furor" Headlines Last Summer?

just curious.

[Maven]

28. Yes, exactly.

I'm getting so fucking sick of the NYT.

Edit: Where the hell is the Abramoff indictment on the NYT front page? Fucking nowhere to be found, that's where. Instead there's the bullshit statement from Chimp about "respecting" the mothers of fallen soldiers. :argh:

[Orion The Hunter]

29. Well the ad is certainly incendiary, but...

...it's not nearly as blatantly ridiculous as the stuff the Swift Boat people pulled. All I think ads like the NARAL one and the ones by the Swift Boat folks do is lower the bar for the next round...