Franken COMPLETELY misses point on NARAL ad....just on

[Gabi Hayes]

Al Franken once again said that he thought the NARAL ad should have been pulled, because of its misleading nature, and mentioned that MANY dems have admitted that the ad went to far.

that's all well and good. I won't argue the validity of the ad's credibility here

He went on to ask the irrelevant question of why the repubs, similarly, didn't decry the "obscene" (his apt word) Swift Boat ads last year. Well, DUH, Al, that's because ALL right wing christo fascists march in lockstep and the very idea of them EVER doing such a thing is utterly laughable. Perhaps he hasn't noticed the savaging of Cindy Sheehan by the far right. Has ANYbody stepped up to decry what's being done to her by the likes of OReilly, Drudge, etal?

the real point to be made here, of course, is the way the media have been handling this story. theyr'e doing now what they SHOULD have done a year ago on the Swift Boat story: ream the the ad for its supposed misleading nature. they hit so hard and so fast, allowing each and every wingnut backyard johnny to voice his/her squealing whines over the airwaves.

Contrast that with what they did last year: run that ad over and over and over, pretending to be appalled, at times, by the controversy raised, by RUNNING it CONSTANTLY, nonetheless. This lasted for WEEKS, not days, like this teakettle tempest (which will be over by Monday, I'd guess, unless the tide is turned, ala Rather/AWOL, into a long-running attack on Dem perfidy.

I hope Media Matters/FAIR, whomever, do a study on this, contrasting the amount of time spent on each respective story. You all know the effect the Swift Boat story had on Kerry's campaign, discounting, even, the effect of Kerry's foolish and deadly lack of immediate response.

It amazes me that people like Franken, supposedly media savvy, can be so TOTALLY ignorant of the real story here.

It was the Economy, stupid, way back when. Ever since the 92 Election, it's been the MEDIA, Al, stupid.

I love you most of the time, but wake the F*** UP!!!!

You've written BOOKS about it; how can you be so blind?

[jojo54]

1. MSNBC Connected is talking about it right now. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

2. watching a movie....will NOT watch that crap ANY more

can you recap, please?

thx

let me guess....they're emphasizing the dishonesty of the ad, the scurillity of NARAL, and how the damage has been done to poor, sweet John Roberts

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

3. Of course he knows it

He is just pointing out how unfair the repubs are. That doesn't mean he doesn't know how unfair the media is...as you stated he wrote a book on. So because he doesn't specifically mention it in that piece does that discount the book he has written. Talk about 'what have you done for me lately'.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. with all due respect, you miss the point, as well.

and remember, we're on the same side :P

he CHOSE not to mention media, just as he CHOSE to open his show two days in a row with this BS story, bolstering, whether he realizes it or not, the right wing line.

to be effective, one needs to make the correct points, and, like the fascists, repeat them over and over and over

again, he CHOSE to highlight this ad. he didn't HAVE to, but he's opened his show with it two days in a row

WHY?

are we not allowed to wonder what's going on in our own camp? this has nothing to do with 'what have you done for me lately'

please explain why he's doing this. he doesn't have to. he made a choice to bring it up..HIGHlight it...when there are MYRIAD other topics to be addressed.

like, oh, say, the stolen election in Ohio. oops, he doesn't like that subject

[K-W]

6. Your Franken bashing is getting old.

And your arguments remain preposterous.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

10. Wow a silly personal attack on me.

If I didnt want to post I wouldnt, if I wanted to ignore you I would, but id rather call you out on your weak arguments and downright silly conclusions about Al Franken.

"did he, or did he not, begin his show with the NARAL ad, two days in a row?"

He did. But the conclusion you draw from this is rediculous.

[Gabi Hayes]

12. oh, ok...you haven't been personal.... ok. meet the kettle

wah wah....why don't you run to the hall monitors?

and what "rediculous" conclusion do I reach?

I don't see one there at all. I just point out that he failed to mention the media's role in this

is that a conclusion? show me where a draw a conclusion?

[K-W]

13. I actually didnt personally attack you, I attacked your post. EOM

[Gabi Hayes]

15. oh, ok....so if I describe everything you say as idiotic, jejune,

preposterous, asinine, etc., that's not personal; just my posts

[K-W]

18. See, that wasnt hard. EOM

[LSK]

5. is this the same ad that Jon Stewart was talking about last night?

If so, why just attack Franken, maybe you should attack the daily show too.

[K-W]

7. Yes.

But apparently we can conclude that Franken is a conservative spy because he didnt like the NARAL ad.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

11. I should take a chill pill?

Why should I take a chill pill because you cant seem to reply to me without a stupid personal attack?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

16. You are responding to things I never said.

And then telling me I cant read.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. jesus....last time, mr/ms perseveration

read the thread

what IS your problem?

you deflect, ignore the substantive, choosing only to go the adhom route.


answer me: what conclusion do I draw?


'rediculous'

[K-W]

20. I have not gone the adhom route once, while you have repeatedly.

If you want me to answer your questions, stop smearing me.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

22. I will answer your question when you stop smearing me. EOM

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

25. You made the choice to turn to personal attacks.

If you cant deal with someone who disagrees with you and thinks your argument is rediculous that is entirely your problem. My tone reflected the way I felt. Im not sure what kind of strange morality tells you that my disagreeing with you justifies your childish insults.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

49. So you think dealing with disagreement easily

means luanching into a barrage of personal attacks. Yah, I really need to seek help.

As I have repeatedly told you, I will be more than happy to discuss the issues, you are the one who turned the conversation to my friendships and mental abilities. I was happy to stick to the discussion.

[rinsd]

24. Do we have any good Jon Stewart is a sell out threads this morning? (nt)

[Gabi Hayes]

26. and your point is????

and, I'm saying this in the sweetest, nicest way... please show me where I called Franken a sellout, or imply such?

all I SAID was that he MISSED the point

FWIW STEWART connected the dots between Roberts' 1991 pleading and an abortion clinic bombing in 1998, according to other posters

if this is true, as they said, he apparently didn't think the ad was that misleading after all'

that said, where is etched in stone that one can't disagree with something that someone with whom we usually agree with says/does

did you love his Santorum interview? should all those threads about his self-admittedly poor job not have been posted?


if you want to join the bash the Franken bashers thread, please go to that other discussion here

I'd REALLY like to discuss media complicity in keeping the thugs in power

do you care at all about that?

thanks

[rinsd]

37. Lighten up Francis (nt)

[Gabi Hayes]

40. JEsus....you're the one who opened it up, Francis why don't YOU?

[rinsd]

43. Sigh....

The comment about threads depicting Jon Stewart as a sellout wasn't directed at you. It was a joke about DU's tendency to do that anytime someone on the pedestal strays from the script of things we would like to hear.

You didn't get the joke and went apeshit. Hence the lighten up comment.

At this point I don't know why I bother.

[Gabi Hayes]

45. sorry....but I'm a bit testy....ok? sorry

OK? is that abject enough?

now, have you read any of the stuff I wanted to talk about before the highjacking occurred?

[Gabi Hayes]

17. back to the point....does anybody have thoughts on how to deal

with the seemingly increasingly heavy handed manner with which the media choose to handle almost every topic of importance?

[Gabi Hayes]

27. interesting how nobody cares to discuss the substance of this thread

and insist on inventing straw men

why is that?

I wonder

[K-W]

29. The topic of this thread is Al Franken, you chose that, not us. EOM

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

36. Read the subject line of your original post. EOM

[Gabi Hayes]

41. you've made your own 'rediculous' points ad nauseum...try reading

this

it's what I'd like to be dealing with here: the amazing preponderance of Right Wing POVs vs. dearth of progressive ones

can you let it go long enough to try it, friend?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=NARAL+responds+to+factcheck.org&btnG=Search

[K-W]

42. Then why did you make a thread about Al Franken?

Why do you keep blaming me for things you do?

[Gabi Hayes]

44. zzzzzzzzzzzz buh bye, EC

[K-W]

48. Start a thread absolutely tearing into Al Franken.

When someone responds with attitude, begin to attack them personally. Tell them they have no friends, tell them they cant read. Do a little amateur psychotherapy while you are at it. Then accuse that person of personally attacking you. Then start saying that you dont want to discuss Al Franken at all. Then when someone calls you on the fact that you supposedly dont want to discuss Al Franken in a thread with his name in the title, you say you will ignore them.

Absolutely classy.

[Gabi Hayes]

50. didn't even bother...answer my posts, I'll answer yours....zzzzzzzz

[K-W]

52. Since that post didnt include a personal attack on me, sure.

"You have no friends, you cant read and you are mentally unstable, so answer my question." Isnt exactly the best way to go about getting a response.

Your question if I remember correctly, was which conclusion of yours I was referring to.

again, he CHOSE to highlight this ad. he didn't HAVE to, but he's opened his show with it two days in a row

WHY?

are we not allowed to wonder what's going on in our own camp?

I was responding to this. You seem to have drawn the conclusion that there was more to Al's comments than meets the eye.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Why not email David Brock?

Perhaps he will or has taken up this issue.

[Gabi Hayes]

32. I think I mentioned them in the header....still checking the web for

stories on this

did you see my very recent links to the Wash Post on this?

have to give them a kudos for discussing both sides of the issue, unlike the ream job happening on cable

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Perhaps they just haven't worked up a good piece yet.

I believe at MM, they have people who can contact by phone. If you do that, they may be able to tell you if anything is in the works. If not, you can suggest it.

[Gabi Hayes]

38. thanks....I heard an excellent rebroadcast of Ira Glass' show the other

day....it was done right after the 2000 election

a section was read by Brock, before he wrote BBTL, and it was compelling, in retrospect.

can't remember details now, but it made me very sad to relive what was done then, not to mention in the succeeding two national elections

EDIT

I couldn't find any mention on their latest edition, so I emailed them, w/copy of the NARAL response to factcheck.org

thanks for the suggestion

[LisaM]

30. I agree; Franken made me quite angry on this one

usually he does not bother me at all when he's centrist. But this is insane. There was nothing wrong with that ad. You can't run scared of the anti-choice thugs.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. how DARE you not worship at the Fountain of Franken

'rediculous!'

I have each book he's written, and support him most of the time.

If he's going to discuss this, I'd like to see him discuss the media's role in ripping the dems, along with his taking the high ground

that's basically what I said in the header

he missed the point

[Gabi Hayes]

31. this is what I'd like to see discussed....no more EC garbage

Factcheck.org’s analysis of the television advertisement released by NARAL Pro-Choice America on August 8, 2005 is deeply flawed, and its conclusion that the “ad is false” is unsubstantiated and should be retracted. The analysis, written by Matthew Barge, identified as a recent college graduate(1), is riddled with legal and factual errors and in many instances virtually mirrors the White House’s talking points. One might disagree with the opinions stated in the ad or even have a different view of how John Roberts’ role in a particular case should be characterized; however, every factual statement made in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s ad is completely accurate and supported by objective documents. The ad is not “false.” John Roberts did indeed file briefs supporting violent fringe groups, with the effect of excusing their actions by helping to remove a crucial legal remedy that had been the most effective tool against them.

Some of the more glaring errors in Factcheck.org’s analysis are detailed below.

Continue reading "Press Release:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2005/08/press_release_n_1.html#more

there's a dissenting post following NARAL's Press Release

also, this page has a bunch of interesting commentary on the imbroglio
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/

[Gabi Hayes]

39. my first google on this is below...and it supports my header

conclusion, "rediculous" as it may seem to the ECs

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=NARAL+responds+to+factcheck.org&btnG=Search

almost every single link is to RW ahole sites

surprised?

[Gabi Hayes]

46. same exact thing happens to this google

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FAIR+NARAL+ad++factcheck.org&btnG=Google+Search

all right wing, all the time

any suggestions for more precise googling?

[Gabi Hayes]

51. nothing on FAIR, either

found a LONG discussion on merits of NARAL ad/legalisms, along with mostly supportive discussion of factcheck--didn't see any discussion of NARAL's response, but it was a VERY long thread at DKOS:

http://tomcurry.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/9/212342/8918