WP: Stop the Roberts Bombing

[primavera]

What do DUers think of this? I appreciate what Dionne is saying, and I have a lot of respect for him (Brookings doesn't generally hire idiots), but still, I'm not sure he's being very realistic here. Sure, in a perfect world, there would be no Swift Boat Veterans for Lies on either side of the aisle, but this is a far cry from a perfect world and these sorts of incredibly destructive, unethical tactics are a lot of the reason the Repukes are in a position to happily hammer nails into the coffin of our democracy and the public is tolerating it. I don't know, are you dancing with the devil to adopt your opponent's evil tactics, or is it moral cowardice to stand on ethics while the ship goes down around you?

Stop the Roberts Bombing
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post - Friday, August 12, 2005

Can we please come up with a better way of arguing about Supreme Court nominees?

Fellow liberals, face it: The advertisement created by NARAL, the abortion rights group that opposes John Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court, is outrageous. It ties Roberts to people who bombed abortion clinics. If this isn't guilt by association, I don't know what is.

...

I'm among those who have criticized liberals for a reluctance to stand up and fight the Bush administration and the right wing. NARAL's defenders could say that the organization is simply being as tough on the right as the right is on the left. In the current climate, the argument goes, only a really harsh attack (the Swift Boat Veterans' attack on John Kerry comes to mind) can force the public and the media to pay attention to issues that would otherwise go unnoticed. The very fact that I am writing this column, unfriendly as it is, can be taken as a sign of NARAL's success.

But if all this is true, why were so many liberals upset by this ad -- some publicly, many privately? It is not, I would submit, because they are wimps. Rather, the over-the-top suggestion that Roberts is someone who would "excuse violence against other Americans" is a distraction from the core issues surrounding his nomination.

...

So let's embrace a Civility Compact: Roberts and the administration will agree to be more open about the issues that matter, so that phony issues and distortions will be left by the wayside, where they belong. Any takers?

[tk2kewl]

1. Republicans are ALL guilty by association!

We are in a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. And there is a large contingent of violent extremists right here in the U.S. They call for violence against Judges they disagree with from the floor of Congress. The spin lies about their opposition. They deny science. They lie to the public and commit crimes against humanity.

Until a group of sane people take the republican party back from the neo-cons and the Religious Reich THEY ARE ALL GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION.

[Frances]

2. I don't know what the answer is

The Republicans ridiculed Kerry's war medals on TV and at their convention. Bob Dole said there must be some truth to the Repub smears of Kerry's medals.

I don't think the NARAL ad was anywhere as bad as the Swift Boat Liars.

But every time the opponents of Bush do something the least bit out of line, they end up apologizing, which makes the Repubs even stronger.

Maybe we just need to run a celebrity so popular that people totally ignore political stands. Oh I remember. The Repubs already did that in Calfornia. (sarcasm)

[tk2kewl]

6. I agree. To hell with precision!

Until the republicans find a conscience they are ALL guilty!

[On the Road]

3. I Think Misleading Advertising Backfires

It's too easy to point out that the errors. Ads like that can lead to future mistrust of any liberal political message, no matter how honest and straightforward. Pointing to right-wing distortions is not an adequate response.

None of this has anything to do with whether Roberts is a good choice for the court. But if he's going to be opposed, it has to be done with legitimate arguments.

The same thing was done with Bork. I am glad he's not on the Supreme Court because of his views on the Constitution. But in the hearings, Bork and his supporters were able to show how the anti-Bork TV ads misrepresented his actual rulings.

In Bork's case, the ads may have been effective. But I don't think it's a good long-term strategy, or a particularly moral one. And with the Democratic support Roberts has already lined up (Byrd, for example), I don't think anything short of a scandal is going to prevent him from sitting on the court.

[tk2kewl]

4. Backfires like the Swifboat liars?

The gloves should be off.

[On the Road]

7. The Gloves Coming Off Should Not Mean Lying

I can't believe how many people here want to imitate the Swiftboat Veterans. That makes me extremely concerned.

[tk2kewl]

8. Is it an outright lie? I don't see it as an outright lie.

I see it as 1.) figting fire with fire, 2.) legitimate guilt by association.

Did roberts ever condemn the anti-choicers for their actions?

[On the Road]

13. It Is an Accumulation of Such Things

that leads to massive distrust of liberal positions. These things develop from the bottom up over a long period of time. There are plenty of legitimate arguments against Roberts. And I think it's condescending on NARAL's part to dumb-down the issue by going with hyperbole and guilt by association.

Don't kid yourself. Barring a scandal, this will not be a close confirmation. The chief result of these ads will be to poison the Democratic message.

Eventually, the Republicans' lies will catch up with them in the court of public opinion. I think the tide is already turning. They just have to be replaced with a voice the public can rely on.

[ElectroPrincess]

20. Exactly! Do NOT EVER apologize to the Right Wing ... NEVER!

Nothing more disgusting that apologizing for playing HARD ball. And for those of you who jumped on NARAL, shame on you! Why? Because behind closed doors, sure say that you would have presented it differently. HOWEVER, if you want to win against the *Republican Noise Machine* do NOT EVER back down.

If you don't mind having our democratic butts handed to us in 2006, then continue to "be puristic" and "play nice". If you want to WIN, then take the gloves off and do NOT EVER back down.

That included supporting those who are in your camp - NARAL. If you can't say something positive then STFU and let others take the ball and run with it.

If the "social issues" continue to go their way, WOMEN will NOT be able to get birth control in the not too distant future.

The bottom line is that the Right Wing wants to control women of child bearing age. Is that what you want? I'd think so by the way you jumped on the "trash NARAL" bandwagon.

[primavera]

11. Maybe, but who pays attention to the errata pages?

Turns out the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies were never posted anywhere near Kerry, never even knew him, could not possibly have had any direct knowledge of him, but did anyone listen? The damage was done and to this day, people think (falsely) that the Swift Boat scum must have had some basis for their claims...

[On the Road]

17. I Simply Cannot Believe That So Many DUers

want to imitate the Swift Boat veterans.

[primavera]

21. I don't think any of us want to imitate their tactics...

... but there's no denying, whether we like it or not, they worked. And they are exactly the kinds of tactics which are being used repeatedly to great effect by our opponents. Doing the right thing is what I'm sure all of us want to do, but how many times do you have to get shot bringing a knife to a gun fight before you conclude you're pursuing a losing strategy?

[tom_paine]

30. What a load of BS, ribofunk. The sad truth is that it works better than

than ever.

Sorry to be so harsh, but are you kidding? The entire monstrously Totalitarian Edifice of the Bushevik Sub-Media and Lie Laundry speaks as testament to how well it works, as does Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ferdinand Marcos, Papa Doc, and ever other Bush-like Leader who ever felt the need to propagandize their people.

It works. Dear God, it works better than I ever imagined.

Am I endorsing Bushevik-style lying? No, but I feel compelled to correct your outrageous statement.

Oh my yes, it works so very well.

[ixion]

5. while I do NOT support bogus advertising, I am curious as to why

the outrage comes back so swift and severe in this case, and yet time and time and time again the same type of bogus ads are run by GOP groups (can you say swift boat?) with seemingly NO outrage, and in fact curiosity as to why people would get upset with the ad in the first place.

AND THAT, really pisses me off. :grr:

[primavera]

10. Precisely

I mean, I would love to believe that misleading advertisements had consequences for those who engaged in them, but what fall-out has there been for the Swiftboat Veterans for Lies? What consequences have there been for Karl Rove? I mean, Repukes never apologize when they get caught lying through their teeth and nobody ever seems to hold them accountable for it. On the other hand, we publish true stories, the administration challenges them, and we fall on our faces apologizing for things that are actually true, thus undermining the credibility of the truth and making ourselves look like idiots in the process. I'm not sure it isn't time to take a lesson or two from the Repuke playbook, as they're plainly better at this crap than we are.

[mattclearing]

9. Welcome to the Washington Post editorial page.

I like Dionne, but he's like Colmes. There simply because he doesn't get the extent to which we are being screwed, and can't mount a decent defense.

After the swiftboating of John Kerry, any liberal or Democrat who wants to blame our side for over-reacting obviously has missed the point, and should really do their best to shore up our own talking points as opposed to parroting the Republicans'.

[depakid]

23. That it comes from the Post says it all

When are DU'rs going to learn that the Post is as bad if not worse than CNN or any of the bullshit sunday talk shows?

Only worth reading if you like being misled, misinformed and generally propangized- or like being aggravated.

[Ysolde]

12. Guilt by association? Or just asking the hard questions?

I read a lot of this and I still don't agree that the NARAL ad was wrong, nor was it a lie. I think that assertion is ridiculous. Why is it when a Republican says that he had "good intentions" we can't call him on it to prove it? If Roberts was "just doing his job" in this case, then why aren't all of his memos and papers open and available? Because, he does side with the anti-abortion extremists and he's just hiding behind a cloak of moderation. If he's not, then I'm sure he has plenty of memos detailing his disgust with those advocating violence. NARAL should never have backed down. They should have used the issue to pry open Roberts' papers. I will never understand the idea that we have to "play nice" while we're being hacked to bits. Playing nice does not win (when have the Republicans ever played nice?).

[MrBenchley]

14. Agreed....

Roberts intervened on behalf of Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of firebombings, and who was publicly spouting rhetoric promoting violence. The federal government was not a party to the case. This was a deliberate choice to jump in on the side of terrorism.

Bray went on to be chaplain of the Army of God, which carried out the 1998 bombing.

To point these things out is exactly on the money.

And the spurious argument by Roberts' defenders is that the old Klan law shouldn’t apply to pro-life picketers because they aren’t motivated by prejudice against women, but purely by opposition to abortion. Which is like saying that the Klan isn't motivated by hatred of other races but by a wish to uphold "tradition."

[GoBlue]

15. Call me when the adminstration agrees, OK Dionne?

[enki23]

16. naral should *not* have withdrawn that ad

either that, or they should never have run it in the first place. once run, it should have been defended. simplistically, repetitiously, and constantly. this, however, is the worst possible outcome. and now we're all talking about the fucking ad, and will be for the forseeable future, all the way through his inevitable fucking confirmation.

thanks, idiots.

[Jade Fox]

18. God forbid we should not be "nice"......

Here's my earlier post on this topic.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2008795&mesg_id=2008795

[Igel]

19. One does not have to be civil.

But if one wants any kind of respect, one has to not be hypocritical, much less lie.

Or, we can go back and state that McCarthy was right: guilt by association is a meaningful way to try people. After all, NARAL seems to want not just guilt by association, but even discimination by association.

[ElectroPrincess]

22. In Politics ...

Only thing that garners respect is power.

POWER grants the politician(s) RESPECT.
WINNING (however dirty) gives the politician(s) POWER.

Hello? We are fighting the Republican Noise Machine. If you don't want to get nasty, then we'll all "inherit the earth" but many of our children will live in abject poverty.

It's our choice. Me? I'll spend a few extra eons in purgatory by keeping my mouth shut among the RW news that smacks of anything negative within the Democratic Party.

If we don't THINK like a team, then we will lose, and lose big come 2006.

[Igel]

24. I've heard such reasoning before.

Mostly in historical writings, for which I am exceedingly grateful. I'm also grateful I'm not in any of the countries that produced those writings.

Those who strive for virtue and power sometimes get both, but usually get one. They sometimes can moderate others' striving after power. Sometimes not.

Those who strive for power, leaving virtue for later, sometimes get power. But I've never known them to achieve virtue. Rather the opposite, actually. And abject poverty was usually not the most important thing on the population's collective mind.

[Gary Boatwright]

25. Roberts isnt so bad. He'll be another Souter.

That guy helped in the fight for a landmark gay rights decision at SCOTUS in 1992.

[primavera]

26. I hope you're right

I realize his track record so far has been too minimal for the opposition to effectively sink its teeth into, but what worries me is, if he isn't an ideological extremist on par with Benito Mussolini, why would our beloved Führer, who is nothing if not ideologically extreme, be nominating him?

[newyawker99]

27. Hi Gary Boatwright!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[GOPFighter]

28. Dammit. This administration is so evil there's no NEED to lie!

Eventually we will take back America and we will do it because the American public got damn sick and tired of being lied to. If we can't beat these sh*theads after all they've done to screw average Americans, then we don't deserve to win.

[benburch]

29. We interrupt this thread...