Franken criticizing NARAL ad!

[Gabi Hayes]

says they're going too far.

uh, Al, why is this misleading?

did he NOT argue in support of those who committed various forms of violence?

WHY don't you leave it alone, at the very least, rather than HELP out the other side?

WTF is WRONG with you?

is he just that DLC, or what?

EDIT: thanks to mel, here's the ad site

http://naral.org

[jean]

1. is this the ad? What did Franken object to?

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/20050808_roberts_ad.cfm

[onehandle]

3. Here:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/20050808_roberts_ad.cfm

[jean]

9. Thanks - I just watched it - 4 stars from me, it rocks

[Mel]

11. go here to watch

http://naral.org/
can you believe it? Franken hasn't even watched it shame on him. I'm off to watch it myself.

[jean]

15. thanks - just saw it and felt my heart swell - it's strong and the right

thing to do and say at this time. We cannot continue being mealy-mouthed and afraid of repubs calling us shrill or far left. What's right is right. Roberts was WRONG to support violence.

[writes2000]

21. But he denounced the violence, correct?

Are we talking ourselves into believing something that isn't true? How will that help us?

[jean]

26. I'll go back and take another look, thanks for the question

[writes2000]

30. Thank YOU...

I was afraid you could get angry at the question but I meant it genuinely.

[jean]

40. no... I came to this topic unaware, watched the ad, again not too

aware of the details and reacted.

I hold Al Franken in very high esteem and didn't know what he said about the ad ... I really appreciate your insight into the issue.

[rniel]

65. Classic republican ad

They use lots of fear mongering and so does this ad. I like the ad though. We need more of them like this. We have to get down and dirty like they do.

[sendero]

80. Republicans..

... talk the country into believing what isn't true on a regular basis.

Get a clue. And please, no lectures about "two wrongs", compared to hundreds of ads Republican have aired over the last 20 years (remember Willie Horton?) this is small potatos.

[rinsd]

37. Roberts no more supported violence than the ACLU supported Nazism...

...in the Skokie case.

The case was 7 years before this bombing happened.

The ad is misleading and even worse very easy to prove how misleading it is.

And here's one that will really make heads swoon, these zones were precursors for the now infamous free speech zones because of the "potential for violence".

On Edit: I wanted to add here that while I have no problem with protesting abortion, I don't think blockades, violence etc is acceptable. The above sentence doesn't make that very clear.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. thanks, putting in header nt

[Beelzebud]

2. I was just getting ready to post about this.

Franken's style is why the democrats keep losing every damn election.

I listened to Bill O'Reilly last night tell the grieving mother of a dead soldier, "We can't leave Iraq now, because that country would be in chaos."

As I listened it struck me how much that sounded like Franken...

I think Franken is a little too DLC for my tastes anymore.

[LSK]

18. i am still wondering why the insurgents would attack each other

when we leave.

But maybe I just dont get it when I think they just want us to leave....

[Midlodemocrat]

4. This ad just ran on CNN. I thought it was great.

What is he objecting to?

[bpilgrim]

5. the more exposure the better - nice TACTIC!

http://www.naral.org

he's a LIMO liberal :evilgrin:

peace

[bpilgrim]

7. won't take any calls today

lol

peace

[onehandle]

14. Because they have a full agenda for the show.

You left that fact out.

Franken draws more guests than any other AAR show. They more than often don't take calls.

[bpilgrim]

29. -- --- ---------- --------------- --------------- - > MP3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/af/aar-af-NARAL.web.mp3

yeah... i know, he's BUSY :evilgrin:

peace

peace

[writes2000]

6. Sounds like the ad is pretty misleading. I'd rather....

our side speak out against questionable things than let them slide because "they're on our side."

As Ron Reagan just said, "I don't want to fight the enemy by becoming them."

[tx_dem41]

10. Prepare for incoming!

I tend to side with your sentiment, though.

[Beelzebud]

8. Al it's a four letter word but it isn't FAIR. It's WIMP.

He's not taking any calls now?

Thats because he knows a majority of his audience is not with him on this one.

[onehandle]

12. This is not the best ad, imo.

NARAL wasted their cash on this.

Roberts is a shoe-in.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. I agree, but only because the MEDIA are doing to this ad what they DIDN'T

do immediately when the Swift Boat ads came out

can you imagine if they'd done the same dissection of those ads, as well as the lying liars and their DIRECT connection to the Bush campaign

Again, he ARGUED ON BEHALF of a group that was very violent, and shortly after the case, was responsible for the MURDER of a doctor!

[tx_dem41]

13. I like Kevin Drum's rewrite of it.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006882.php

[onehandle]

17. Much better. nt

[Dudley_DUright]

19. Here is NARAL's refutation of FactCheck.org's claims

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-naral-ad.html

[Gabi Hayes]

25. thanks! factcheck is part of what, ANNENBERG? nuff said

they DEFENDED, according to a recent thread, the use of "British intelligence has learned" as an excuse to argue that the sixteen words in the SOTU were TRUE!!!!

Brooks Jackson is the worst kind of tool, because even socalled objective voices claim him to be objective

[Igel]

22. It was, to all appearances, a point of law.

He did not argue in support of those who committed various forms of violence. The defendants had lawyers that argued in support of thoe who committed violence.

Roberts argued in support of reading the law a certain way--the way it had been intended, and mostly accepted to mean, for 120 years or so--in order to avoid setting a bad precedent that would have had bad implications. Sometimes arguments in court aren't about people in the concrete, i.e., the people sitting in the courtroom, but about the law and people 5 or 25 years later.

The baddies were already going to jail. And, a couple of years later, a law was put into place that specifically addressed the issue.

[jean]

28. thanks for clarifying

[meganmonkey]

86. I agree. I think a lot of people don't realize what his role was back then

I am not a defender of this guy, but I think this is the wrong thing to try to nail him on.

[durutti]

23. He is indeed DLC. n/t

[tx_dem41]

24. Yes, indeedy.

:eyes:

[K-W]

27. No he actually isnt. EOM

[durutti]

32. You know him better than himself, apparently.

At his appearance at the Los Angeles BookExpo (where he had his infamous exchange with O'Reilly), he stated explicitly, "I'm a DLC Democrat." Video is available widely on the Internet.

[Beelzebud]

38. Sad isn't it? He constantly challenges O'Reilly, and yet agrees with him

on Iraq... Pathetic.

As I said earlier. Orielly and Franken both say the exact same thing about Iraq: "We can't pull out now, because it would be chaos."

As if it weren't chaos right now...

[K-W]

47. They dont agree about Iraq,

What an intellectually dishonest statement.

On the vast majority of issues relating to the war they disagree a great deal.

[durutti]

50. I'm only aware of one issue relating to the war.

Do you or do you not favor withdrawal now? If not, then you are pro-war. Period.

[K-W]

53. Casting all positions but your own as the same position...

Ive seen more intellectual honestly out of Bill O'Reilly.

[durutti]

61. It's called thinking logically.

If you aren't for immediate withdrawal, then you are for war until you feel withdrawal is possible. If this position is anti-war, then the Bush administration is staunchly anti-war. They don't want to fight a war forever. They want a subservient Iraq ASAP, and want to leave as soon as this goal is accomplished. They are pro-war for now -- just like Al Franken.

[K-W]

64. So you think overgeneralization is logical?... right.

If you aren't for immediate withdrawal, then you are for war until you feel withdrawal is possible.
Indeed.

If this position is anti-war, then the Bush administration is staunchly anti-war.

You are trying to devide all opinions into black and white. pro-war and anti-war. Im sorry, but reality doesnt follow your simplistic thinking. The Bush administration wants to stay in Iraq until it is able to control it without occupying it. Al wants to stay in Iraq just long enough to give them a better shot at stability and then pull out completely.

The two are massively different positions that are you are generalizing as the same.

They don't want to fight a war forever. They want a subservient Iraq ASAP, and want to leave as soon as this goal is accomplished. They are pro-war for now -- just like Al Franken.

I could use the same rediculous generalization to claim that Al has the same position you do. I mean he does want to withdraw the troops ASAP, he just disagrees with you about when ASAP is.

But I am not interested in generalizing his position. I am comfortable being honest about his opinion rather than trying to generalize it because I care more about ideological purity than the truth.

[durutti]

70. You're conflating two separate questions.

The question of what you want Iraq to be like before leaving and whether or not you want to leave are two separate questions.

[K-W]

72. How so?

The question of what you want Iraq to be like before leaving and whether or not you want to leave are two separate questions.

Indeed, nothing I said contradicts this.

[K-W]

44. Fine, dont bother to actually look at his views.

Al Franken's view of the DLC is terribly niave, which is a very valid criticism of him. But it is a terrific misreading of that situation to think he meant that he was a conservative democrat.

[durutti]

55. Alright, then. Let's examine his views.

He:

1. Defends to this day Clinton's bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan.

2. He is pro-war, regardless of any insistance to the contrary. His criticism of the other side is their incompetence in fighting the wars, not the wars themselves.

3. He refuses to blame Israel for anything bad. (And let's not forget the infamous Arafat sketch on his show.

[K-W]

63. Does the word examine mean distort where you come from?

1. Defends to this day Clinton's bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan.

Right, he is factually wrong. You would only have a point if he knew the real facts and still supported it. I will readily admit that Al draws conclusions without getting down to the facts on many issues, and I cant stand it when he does it, but his believing propaganda doesnt make him a conservative, just a bit of a fool.

2. He is pro-war, regardless of any insistance to the contrary. His criticism of the other side is their incompetence in fighting the wars, not the wars themselves.
I am not interested in your dualistic frame. Al is not a pure dove. That doesnt make him a hawk. As far as his being pro-war, that is just silly. His views on war are very liberal, but he isnt a pacifist.

3. He refuses to blame Israel for anything bad. (And let's not forget the infamous Arafat sketch on his show

I cant speak to this accusation. I dont know if that is true, but I doubt it.

[durutti]

67. He's not accused of being a conservative.

1. He's accused of being DLC. Bill Clinton was DLC, but his views were to the left of Bob Barr. The DLC is centrist. And for the most part, he parrots the DLC line. Now, as regards your contention that he's ignorant rather than malicious: that can't be verified, first of all; and secondly, someone in Franken's position, if ignorant, can only be said to be willfully ignorant.

2. See post #61. Also, one doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to favor immediate withdrawal.

3. To fill you in: when Arafat died, he broadcasted a "funny" sketch in which Arafat was strangled to death in his hospital bed. That should provide some taste of his views on the issue.

[K-W]

68. Call it what you like you are still wrong.

And for the most part, he parrots the DLC line.

Bullshit.

Now, as regards your contention that he's ignorant rather than malicious: that can't be verified, first of all;

Actually it can be verified, by listening to him. Unless you are arguing that he is a liar and propagandist, in which case the burden of proof lies on you.

and secondly, someone in Franken's position, if ignorant, can only be said to be willfully ignorant.

That is absurd.

2. See post #61. Also, one doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to favor immediate withdrawal.

umm, yah, but nobody claimed otherwise.

3. To fill you in: when Arafat died, he broadcasted a "funny" sketch in which Arafat was strangled to death in his hospital bed. That should provide some taste of his views on the issue.

Actually that provides very little actual information about his views on the issue. It tells me he wasnt a huge Arafat fan and made a bad joke. Now I know very few people who are arafat fans regardless of thier position on Israel/Palestine, and I know people of every ideology who make bad jokes.

[Behind the Aegis]

71. Say what?!

3. He refuses to blame Israel for anything bad. (And let's not forget the infamous Arafat sketch on his show.

ONE unfunny skit now translates as "refusing to blame Israel?!" Now there's a jump over the logic stump!

[K-W]

31. Yep, everyone who has a different opinion than you must be conservative!

So you think people with the same progressive goals who disagree with you about the efficacy or correctness of an ad, are not in fact progressives?

[Gabi Hayes]

33. so you put words in the mouth of everbody that disagrees with you?

damn you, daddy, sir!

I think he continually shows his DINO side, and, as I said, if he's going to comment on this ad the way he did, it ONLY gives ammo to the other side

why did he have to bring it up at all? if someone had axed him about it, he could have commented it, but now it's just out their, providing fuel for those who twist every single word progressives EVER say

speaking of which, can you say Cindy?

jesus

and, as far as Igil has explained above, what about the RULE of LAW, they argue. for the love of GOD! if you want to split hairs on points of law, well.....be a lawyer! why don't WE make THEM do this sort of 'hairsplitting'

exactly as they do to us, ALL THE TIME: isn't it nice to put them on the defensive for once?

who's going to remember if this ad was 'misleading' a few years down the pike?

what do you remember about Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill:

A little bit nutty, and a little bit slutty?

Pubic Hair on the Coke Can?

who won that publicity battle?

and WHO WAS LYING THEIR ASSES OFF? to the point of perjury?

[K-W]

42. I didnt put words in anyones mouth.

You dug your own hole with your repugnant attempt to smear someone who disagrees with you on the logistics of action as being ideologically flawed.

If you disagree with Al make a rational argument instead of pulling out DLC innuendo to attack his political charecter.

I think he continually shows his DINO side,

If Al Franken is a DINO, most of this forum is full of DINO's. He is a progressive liberal.

and, as I said, if he's going to comment on this ad the way he did, it ONLY gives ammo to the other side

How dare he not show blind loyalty to the left!!!!

why did he have to bring it up at all? if someone had axed him about it, he could have commented it, but now it's just out their, providing fuel for those who twist every single word progressives EVER say

He told you why he brought it up, because he disagrees with it. And no this does not provide fuel to twist every single word progressives ever say, that is rediculous.

exactly as they do to us, ALL THE TIME: isn't it nice to put them on the defensive for once?

Yep this is the first time anyone has critisized the right.

who's going to remember if this ad was 'misleading' a few years down the pike?
Of the few people who remember the ad at all, the percentage that thinks it was misleading will probably remember it as misleading.

what do you remember about Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill:

A little bit nutty, and a little bit slutty?

Pubic Hair on the Coke Can?

who won that publicity battle?

and WHO WAS LYING THEIR ASSES OFF? to the point of perjury?

Thanks for bringing up stuff that has no relevance to this thread. Al spent 30 seconds giving his opinion on whether the add is factually correct. An opinion that in no way suggested he had a conservative view of the issue. You are blowing this way out of proportion and making absurd attacks on Al's progressivism.

[bpilgrim]

34. does he think that Roberts is NOT an extreme political HACK?

"i wouldn't filibuster him" - AF 11/08/05

i won't speak for the OP but can't we disagree with him on this point?

since, he does happen to be wrong - which ain't often ;->

:hi:

peace

[Gabi Hayes]

35. who's Robbins?

thx

[Gabi Hayes]

36. you mean Roberts? thx

[bpilgrim]

46. D'oh!

thx :hi:

peace

[K-W]

48. Of course you can disagree with him, thats great.

Just dont try to impune his ideological purity because he doesnt think that the fillibuster is the best way to achieve the goals he shares with us. Or because he thinks this ad is misleading even though he shares the progressive goals of the group who made it.

We should have a debate about tactics, that debate should not consist of baseless attacks on peoples ideological committment because some people cant seperate goals and tactics.

Edit: Nary a day goes by that I dont disagree with Franken, his niaveness and ignorance of some issues frustrate me immmensly. But I know that while often wrong, he is a sincere progressive.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I don't think we need to be misleading to oppose Roberts

Call me old fashion and square--but I don't see anything DLC about that.
_________________________________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[Gabi Hayes]

41. again, exactly how misleading is it? because of the point of law

discussed? what was the overall effect of his pleading?

whose side was he on?

and are we in the world of realpolitik or pattycake here?

do you think for ONE moment that they'd not have done this had the choice been theirs? I understand the slippery slope to which this leads, and the ramifications thereof, but this is the sort of game that they've been playing ever since, oh, gee, EVER?

it's what they do, and to EVER apologize is a sign of weakness, which only allows the battle to shift to THEM, once again. it allows THEM to be on the attack, and puts us on the defensive

these people are FASCISTS

sorry, but they are, and it's time we stopped playing by the Marquess of Queensberry

[tx_dem41]

43. So you must believe that the ACLU were Nazis when they ...

supported the Nazis' right to march in Skokie. Just wanted to be clear on that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

45. we have plenty of hard facts to fight the Roberts nomination with

Implying that he supported violence at the clinics---well--what can I say ?

___________________-


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[rinsd]

57. "plenty of hard facts to fight the Roberts nomination"

Actually we don't.

Hence the association of the man's clients' beliefs with his own, the interest in the circumstances of his adoption etc.

Now the thing that interests me is his decisions regarding civil rights specifically when he joined the Appeals Court.

[rinsd]

49. "Wit us or agin us" not just for morans anymore! (nt)

[tx_dem41]

51. "Anymore"?

Heck, Rinsd...where have you been for the last 6 months? That's business-as-usual around here. ;)

[rinsd]

54. "where have you been for the last 6 months? "

Hangin with Cheney in his secret bunker...it's a pretty sweet deal.

We have satellite TV though the cheap bastard likes to drink Milwaukee's Best and he freaking cheats during the Texas Hold 'Em tourneys. On the plus side he has some of the best raunchy jokes this side of Jeffrey Ross. I'm told I only have 2 more weeks of "spirit enhancement" before that cushy job with COINTELPRO.

Wish me luck!

[tx_dem41]

56. Good luck on the...

PNAC application, btw. I hear the initiation's a bitch! :)

[rinsd]

60. All I know is that goats and hallucinogenics are involved....(nt)

[tx_dem41]

62. Oh my!

:scared:

[Pystoff]

52. Unfortunately

You are right.

Backing the team doesn't mean becomming a zombie and sticking to a story.

That's what ** does all the time don't become a **.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

59. exactly

imo the ad seems to be drawing conclusions that are not legitimate. i think al did the right thing bringing it up.

[noiretextatique]

58. misleading, but not as misleading as some other ads

like the willie horton ads....welfare queens, etc. did franken mention that?

[SeekerofTruth]

66. The NARAL ad is helping the other side! Al is helping our side...

Go to Factcheck.org and look it up. Al isn't helping the other side, the NARAL ad is by lying.

You don't win people over to your side by lying.

I like Al and think he's great. Keep up the honesty Al, it's how we'll win back the government!

[charlie]

69. Factcheck's take has some holes in it too

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-naral-ad.html

As for the effect of lying, brazen bald-faced lying hasn't hurt Poppy or Dubya much, it's got them pretty much everything they've desired.

[tx_dem41]

73. So, then the lesson is....

be like Poppy and Dubya....

Sorry, no thanks. I don't worship at their altars like some DUers do.

[charlie]

74. No, the lesson is

the assertion no won gets one over by lies is wrong. Anything else you draw out of that is your own concoction.

Who worships at the altars of Poppy and Dubya? Names?

Edit: spelling

[tx_dem41]

75. Who worships at their altars?

People who want to emulate them.

[charlie]

76. Okay

DU has Dubya-worshippers. You're not one of them. Got it.

[tx_dem41]

78. That's all I'm sure of on this topic.

Its funny. We "hate" the guy because he is a liar. He lied about the war for example. We hate him because he lied to gain political power.

Ironically, you and others are proposing the same, exact thing. How does that make you any better?

[charlie]

81. Boy

a day you don't get to sniff about the crassness of DUers is a day without sunshine, isn't it? Let your belt out a notch, you're taking your Commissar of Correctness job too seriously.

I did not propose lying. I do not think lying is a good idea or even necessary. I posted a counterpoint to Factcheck's claim to having a definitive analysis and made an observation about how far lying can get you. Pause to consider what you read before you run with your assumptions.

[tx_dem41]

82. What I read:

"As for the effect of lying, brazen bald-faced lying hasn't hurt Poppy or Dubya much, it's got them pretty much everything they've desired."

The drool was practically pouring off your chin. If you want to start backtracking concerning what you said, that's your issue.

And, what you dismiss as "crassness", I'll call "lack of core principles".

[charlie]

83. You are low

1. You don't win people over to your side by lying.

2. As for the effect of lying, brazen bald-faced lying hasn't hurt Poppy or Dubya much, it's got them pretty much everything they've desired.

So much for your "core principles." You're calling me a liar, ergo I must be a liar. I have to be liar for your snit to make sense.

Piss off. That was a response to an assertion, not advice.

[SuperWonk]

77. There is a limit to how far you should go...

before what you are saying blows up in your face.

Aggression can be a good and valuable tool, but only when it is backed up with truthful rhetoric.

NARAL's counterproductivity is shameful... and everyone knows it.

[tx_dem41]

79. Agreed. n/t

[BigBearJohn]

84. I think Franken is grooming himself for a Senate seat

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

85. Salon criticized it Tuesday

Where was the outrage against Salon? Is it only when Franken says it that it's DLC?

Maybe he didn't explain it as well as Salon did. But Salon explains exactly how NARAL could have made the ad effective without leaving themselves open to attack, which was dumb of them to do.

-snip-

As deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush, Roberts filed a brief and made oral arguments in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, a case in which the Supreme Court considered whether pro-choice groups and abortion providers could use an 1871 civil rights law to stop antiabortion protesters from blocking abortion clinics. Although the United States was not a party in the case, Roberts filed a "friend of the court" brief in which he argued that the law was not applicable in the context of antiabortion activities. In doing so, he took the side of Operation Rescue and Michael Bray, an antiabortion zealot who spent time in prison for his role in a string of abortion clinic bombings in the 1980s.

If NARAL had stopped its ad there -- if it had said, "John Roberts didn't have to get involved in this dispute, but he did, and he took the side of violent men like Michael Bray" -- the Republicans still would have howled, but they wouldn't have had much justification. Such an attack on NARAL wouldn't have been nearly as odious as some of the president's party's guilt-by-association smears over the years. In 2002, the Republicans defeated Georgia Sen. Max Cleland with a TV spot that suggested that Cleland, a man who lost both his legs and one of his arms in Vietnam, was somehow aligned with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But the key to success with such a sleazy tactic -- the thing the Republicans understand -- is that you've got to rely on innuendo rather than on an explicit statement of fact. The anti-Cleland ad didn't say that Cleland was aligned with Hussein or bin Laden, exactly; it just threw up pictures of the three men and then relied on viewers to draw that inescapable connection for themselves. Intellectually dishonest? You bet, but it's hard for anyone to say that you've got your facts wrong.

In the final line of its new ad, NARAL denies itself that plausible deniability. NARAL's ad says that America "can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans." The problem? While Roberts did in fact come to the aid of Operation Rescue and Bray, he has also made it clear that he doesn't excuse the violence. That may be a fine distinction, but it's one that has forced NARAL to backpedal. In a statement on the group's Web site, NARAL President Nancy Keenan says: "I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I’m sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still, his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings."

We're all for fighting fire with fire. But NARAL could have hit Roberts just as hard without suggesting so explicitly that he excused antiabortion violence, and it wouldn't have anything to "but still" about today.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?day=20050809