Redstate

organization.  Some organizations can claim they want to improve women's health etc, but this one has never seen an abortion restriction they liked-including those that the vast majority of Americans support, and they certainly aren't above playing partisan politics games.

The DNC's close relationship with this organization doesn't help the party either.

They should be treated accordingly.

NARAL's message on this issue can be captured in one line: Abortion rights more important than the right to peaceful protest.  

Violence against anyone, including against abortion clinics, is illegal.  The right to peacefully protest is still quite legal.  Though that might change if NARAL Pro Choice America (the artist formerly known as the national abortion rights action league), Senator Schumer, and their buddies have their way.

because NARAL has protested things like SC writing a law that required abortion clinics to maintain the same health standards expected for outpatient surgery clinics.  NARAL sued (thankfully they lost), but the suit didn't make any sense, given the fact that requiring a high standard for health and safety in an abortion clinic would only mean better safety for the women seeking abortions, so you would think NARAL would back up laws like this one rather than fight them, if they were really about women's health.

Nope they are really about abortion, and maintaining the right of women to have the power of life and death over their children inside the womb.  

So it is more like "consitution vs making sure abortion providers get their money"

"This clearly is a smear campaign designed to ignore the facts and make assertions that are simply untrue,"

Where was the ACLJ when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were running their ad campaign?

I don't condone false accusations in commercials,  but this is turning into a case of what goes around comes around

Exploiting a natural fear of terrorism to attack a nominee with knowingly false images is incompatible with civility and reason

And that's just a page from the Dick Cheney playbook, all sarcasm aside.

A "loss leader" is an item a store puts on sale below/near cost, and then advertises it with abandon.  They won't make profit on the item at its sale price---but that's not the point. The idea is to get customers in the store, at which point they might buy other things.

Seems to me that NARAL might be using the same philosophy with this ad.  Naturally it will stir the faithful.  But, it also draws attention.  Look how quickly the conservative blogosphere has reacted; Powerline covered this in detail last night.

If this ad draws attention, NARAL can expect plenty of phone calls from newspapers wanting comments, and TV shows wanting NARAL advisors to discuss/defend the ad.  This puts NARAL squarely in the public eye.

Now, when Wolf Blitzer or Bob Schieffer or Brit Hume quizzes NARAL about why they launched such an atrocious ad, I'll bet that NARAL will have a well-dressed, calm, polished spokeswoman there to respond.  She'll likely make some technical observations about Bray V Alexandria , followed by some vague generalizations about how Roberts' role in Bray troubles NARAL.

At that point, she'll be done with the loss leader.  She'll then move on to the real sale:  a wider attack against Roberts in general.

And, she'll have a much better platform from which to attack, with a much larger and more attentive audience, than NARAL did before airing the ad.

My guess:  NARAL never intended to make a detailed and empassioned legal argument intended to link John Roberts to the KKK and other white supremacist groups.  They were simply bidding to get us in their store.  And now, we are.

Does this mean we shouldn't fight back.  H*&L NO!  We should and must.  But, I'd urge us, as we respond to this monstrous ad, to be wary that this may not be NARAL's main offensive.  It might just be a feint.  

A "loss leader" is an item a store puts on sale below/near cost, and then advertises it with abandon.  They won't make profit on the item at its sale price---but that's not the point. The idea is to get customers in the store, at which point they might buy other things.

I spoke with someone this weekend who was a volunteer at a NOW abortion-rights rally that was held in Chicago.  She was complaining because only five people showed up at the event, but she also said that they "got a lot of email addresses."  How they did that with only five people showing up for the "rally" I don't quite know.  But if that is true, the problem that NOW and NARAL are having is getting people's attention, and this is the kind of attention-grabbing campaign that they're looking for.

aside from the fact the Swift Vets were correct, that's a completely irrelevant comparison. Trollish, even, because anyone with something resembling a brain knows Kerry was running for PRESIDENT, he was not nominated to be a judge.

The group's name, as perhaps you did not notice, is American Center for LAW and JUSTICE, i.e. they deal with judicial matters, not Presidential campaigns.

Moderators: why is this guy not in the Pile?

My personal view is that NARAL is a terrorist group, but in any case I could care less what a few loony communists spend their money on.

maybe they didn't object because the ads were true:

 KERRY: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ..."

JOE PONDER (wounded 1968): The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam were just devastating ..."

KERRY: "... randomly shot at civilians ..."

PONDER: "... more than any physical wounds I had."

KERRY: "... cut off limbs, blown up bodies ..."

KEN CORDIER (former POW): "That was part of the torture, that you had to sign a statement that you committed war crimes."

KERRY: "... razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan ..."

PAUL GALANTI (former POW): John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying."

KERRY: "... crimes committed on a day-to-day basis ..."

CORDIER: "He betrayed us in the past. How could we be loyal to him now?"

KERRY: "... ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam ..."

GALANTI: "He dishonored his country and, more importantly, the veterans he served with. He sold them out."

You are letting your <sup>Known Facts</sup&gt get in the way again.  Which false accusation has you the most upset- Christmas in Cambodia?

This case was another example of liberals unable, or unwilling, to use the (small-d) democratic process to achieve a policy outcome.  The people responsible for bombing the clinic were already convicted under numerous other laws.  NARAL wanted to use an antiquated and clearly unrelated statute to extract extra punishment against folks who were already convicted of crimes and were being appropriately punished under the rule of law.

Just because NARAL wanted something to be true, doesn't mean that it should be true (thank god).  And the fact that the Court ruled 6-3 along with Roberts' argument suggests that his views were clearly in the mainstream.  That the three dissenters wanted to create judge-made law by expanding a clearly written and narrowly crafted law to a whole new area, unforseeen and unanticipated by Congress, does not connote good constitutional practice.  If you want to make law, step down from the bench and run for Congress.

This is just another example of liberal's double standard when it comes to the Constitution and equal rights. They fight tooth and nail for their so-called "constitutional right" to an abortion, and yet are just as ready to block an individual's rights to speak out against abortion.

But wait; there is more! The double standard with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and all the other pro-abortion organizations is that while they taught being pro-choice, and giving a woman the right to choose, they refuse to give women all pertinent information. Information such as the connection between abortion and breast cancer, or the dangers of the morning after pill, or even the truth about post-abortion depression.

Women are the greatest victim of the 21st century! Yes, I would even say greater victims than the children who are being murdered each day by abortions. Not only are they deprived of important health information, not only are the deceived and manipulated, but then they have to live with the consequence of their actions in a world that denies their pain. Thank God for Crisis Pregnancy Centers all over this country that are doing all they can to reach out to these hurting women.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a very bad thing for the chances of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned?

I would imagine that NARAL could make an airtight case to their supporters against any potential justice who would be remotely likely to overturn Roe.

Don't we want a justice that scares the bejezzus out of NARAL, and in a very real and meaningful way?

I have noticed that the "liberal" mindset is such that if you repeat something enough times it is deemed to be held as True.

Do not worry about fact, just repeat a lie often and it becomes Truth in the "liberal" mind.

This is just the tip of the ice berg as it relates to how far they will go to damage someone's reputation that does not agree 100% with them!

I could link you to MediaMatters but I'm sure you'd believe them as much as I believe the swift boats, so we'll have to just agree to disagree.

Just as theres some of the swift boat stuff is "technically not lies," same with this NARAL thing. John Roberts didn't come out and argue in favor of abortion bombing, but its plain to see how they got to that conclusion.

Besides, John Kerry was running for president, 4 year term, 8 years max. John Roberts is going to SCOTUS, for the rest of his life. Barring poor health, he'll be there, 20, 30 years. A SCOTUS nominee in this political climate should expect a more rigorous debate than what accompanied the presidential debate. I'd hardly call the comparison "irrelevant"

Again, I reiterate that I don't support baseless heated attack rhetoric in any case, including this NARAL ad. I'm simply stating, its hardly teh first time gross generalizations have been used to attack somebody, and this isn't a trait exclusive to the left.

The best thing that could happen would be for his health to sideline him.  Then we could get two of our guys in there.  There is no way these abortionists could battle two nominees.  They are just being ridiculous.

bloody murder.

I strongly suspect they already have long dossiers ready to go on most of the "known" possibilities.  For instance if Edith Brown, Janis Rogers Brown, Garza or Luttig were to be nominated, they will be screaming at the top of their lungs.

I do suspect they would lay off Roberts some, mainly because he doesn't have much public record, but I bet they would take them both on.  These people are dedicated to their goal of making sure every woman retains the right to murder he children in the womb at will.

he could just cooperate and die already!

Honestly, enough with the morbid politics.  Dead pools make for some funny moments(and atleast one pretty crappy movie) but mixing it with a political agenda is just nauseating.  A month ago every morning I was expecting to load up RS and find a diary titled "Rehnquist dead at 80, Timing couldn't be better!"

Abortion is close to murder, but it is not exactly the same.

It is the same in that a human life is extinguished.  However, if a woman's life is at risk, or if she were raped, she should have the right to make that decision.

Otherwise, you'd be right about abortion being the same as murder.  Most abortions are just done because the woman is too selfish and too vain to pay the price for a mistake that she made.  So she compounds the mistake by killing an innocent.

Hey, any time you are in a war for innocent lives, you always hope that your side wins.  I mean, we are hoping that the bad Iraqis die, too, right?  There's no difference.  Someone has to lose and it's not going to be us.

In your analysis, who's the bad Iraqi here?  Rehnquist?  He's been a better than decent Justice.  Roberts?  He's a good man, and we'll see what kind of Justice he makes, but signs are pretty good.

I think your analogy is a little overwrought.  It's one thing to wish and plan for the death of actual armed opponents (i.e., the Saudi insurgents) but to wish for death of mere political opponents is a little much.

and Rehnquist is the proverbial "bad Iraqi" then go "retire" him yourself instead of just poking pins in a voodoo doll.

If you don't see how dispicable your post was then it's probably useless discussing this.  You said it would be "best" if his cancer worsened to the point that he'd have to step down.  What if tomorrow a cure for thyroid cancer was discovered?  Would you feel regret?  Sorrow that Rehnquist lived too long?  Bleh.

The problem with your post is that you specifically asked why the ACLJ had not criticized the Swift Vets. I (correctly) noted that is not their area of concern and so they would never address any such issue.

Thus, your entire argument was flawed, and you wrongly attacked that group on the basis of said disproven claim.

There is absolutely no comparison-- NONE-- between the Swift Vets and NARAL. First, it's apples and oranges to a great extent, but second, NARAL is much less truthful.

When NARAL says Roberts supports bombing abortion clinics, that is a 100% lie. In fact, it could not be less truthful, and they know that.

Perhaps the Swift Vets were only 90% correct. But guess what, let's say they were 1% correct. That would make them infinitely more honest than NARAL.

If you are here to peddle lies, leave. Whereas you may think you can easily trick conservatives into becoming extreme leftists, the reality is quite different. Acting like a "moderate" to do this is already a very old tactic. You have DU and DKos-- go there.

The ACLJ line was more of a joke, and certainly was not the basis of my whole argument. I didn't expect a partisan group like the ACLJ to have anything to do with defending Kerry.

My point, as it always has been, is that you can't criticize NARAL like is the first group to ever mount some kind of attack campaign before.

And please stop the "there is no comparison" business, because it doesn't make any sense.

If I made a statement like "this group used a tenuous-at-best claim in a national television campaign designed to discredit their target" how can you deny it doesn't apply to both groups? Lets analyze:

Roberts argued on behalf of a protest group to prevent a "questionable jurisdiction" law from affecting. (If I understand it well) NARAL's spin: some of the group were extremist bombers, so Roberts supports bombers. Its a gross generalization (remember, I used that term already) but its not like they made it up out of mid air.

Kerry served in Vietnam under whatever circumstances. Swift Boat Vets: We served with him and don't trust him for the following reasons, etc etc. Something like one of the swift boat bets actually served on Kerry's boat, and the whole group came forth with a bunch of claims that ran counter to official Navy documentation, but the fact that there might have been SOME truth was enough for many people.

Bottom line: Neither of these groups, which are clearly partisan, should be trusted fully. However, both launched PR campaigns. Don't get into a splitting hairs of which one is "less truthful" because neither should be trusted.

When NARAL says Roberts supports bombing abortion clinics, that is a 100% lie. In fact, it could not be less truthful, and they know that.

Please, they could easily be less truthful. John Roberts personally bombed an abortion clinic, or something of that nature.

If you are here to peddle lies, leave. Whereas you may think you can easily trick conservatives into becoming extreme leftists, the reality is quite different.

What are you even talking about?

Acting like a "moderate" to do this is already a very old tactic. You have DU and DKos-- go there.

A moderate, eh? And I've never been to DU.

Personally, I am against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, endangered lives, and other extreme cases. And I am largely indifferent on Roberts' nomination, and don't mind if and when he makes it to the SCOTUS.

See this link.

with ads for or against a judicial nominee.

Unlike political campaigns, we the people aren't voting on anyone, the representatives we voted for will be and frankly I would prefer the proccess not be corrupted with dueling TV ads.

This whole ad proccess just proves that the nomination of judges has become totally political.

The most effective Swift Vet ad, in my opinion, and one of if not their biggest buy, was John Kerry's testimony before Congress.

That testimony is real. The SBVT didn't make that testimony. And that testimony was an attack on the US military before a world hostile to America and its interests.

Any claim that John Roberts supports any illegal act, most especially terror bombing, is a complete and total lie.

If you cannot tell the difference, well, you are a fool on top of liar.

Kerry served in Vietnam under whatever circumstances. Swift Boat Vets: We served with him and don't trust him for the following reasons, etc etc. Something like one of the swift boat bets actually served on Kerry's boat, and the whole group came forth with a bunch of claims that ran counter to official Navy documentation, but the fact that there might have been SOME truth was enough for many people.

I don't recall official Navy documentation contradicting the Swiftees. What documentation are you referring to?

The only solid fact I saw come out of that was that it is clear that Kerry was never in Cambodia as he claimed (several times, to make a political point).

Many of of the Swiftees we on boats next to Kerry's during key actions. It is not like they were serving of large blue water ships that were miles apart.

It is also worth realizing that the Swiftees' opposition to Kerry was rooted in his testomony, in which he claimed to have seen attrocities. Later he backtracked and said he hadn't really seen his fellow Swiftees committ attrocities, but that was the original implication.