Typical misstatement by Howard Kurtz

[DefenseLawyer]

on CNN this morning. There was discussion of Roberts' wife being a leader of an anti-abortion group, but he framed the issue as "are his wife's views fair game?" and then added "would anyone bring it up if she was 'pro-choice'? I don't think so." Of course that immediately reframes the issue as being about her views, as opposed to he activities. The correct rhetorical question would have been "would anyone bring it up if she was on the board of NARAL?" and oh, by the way, yeah, they would.

[eleny]

1. You better believe the wingers would bring it up if she was pro choice

Bill Clinton was skewered over his spouse's views.

[Lindsay]

2. They call it framing.

I call it lying.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. I call it Misinformiterpolation.

But that's just me.

[jzodda]

4. Personally I would like to see the wife left out of it

Even good ol Mr. Kennedy agrees with that one.

It would be totally without precedent to now make your spouse's politics fair game in your own judicial confirmation. Do not get me wrong, I like the fact that WE talk about it and speculate what it means. I would like to see it left out of the hearings though.

Let the focus in the hearings be on his views, his history, and his rulings however meager they may be.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. I don't disagree necessarily

but it seems to me that being an leader of an anti-abortion lobby is more than simply "being pro-life". I know that the right would have disqualified him out of the gate if his wife was the president of NARAL.