FactCheck Pans NARAL Ad
The television advertisement I discussed earlier today linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists has been called "false" by FactCheck.org, an arm of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck's analysis points out several of the flaws I mentioned, and adds several more serious problems.
From the analysis: "The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with 'violent fringe groups' and a 'convicted ... bomber' because he made the same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions. ...
NARAL would have every right to say that Roberts argued for a legal result with which they disagreed. They could also say accurately that many persons, including three Supreme Court justices, also disagreed and saw a threat of 'mob violence' going unchecked because of that position. But it is false to suggest that Roberts supported the actions of 'violent' groups or clinic bombers because he argued that a law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan could not be used against those who blockade abortion clinics."
I agree strongly with FactCheck's analysis, and would urge NARAL to remove the ad from circulation and revise it to mirror actual fact, rather than shrill political rhetoric.
posted by JBD @ 7:29 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Hmmm... factcheck.org's analysis is just as flawed and misleading as the NARAL ad. In no way does the ad say that Roberts supports Operation Rescue's tactics. The ad says, "America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.". At the time the amicus briefing was filed, it was known that Operation Rescue contained certain fringe elements that did use violence to get their point across (i.e., Bray is even named in the suit). FactCheck misleadingly states that Roberts was not the lawyer representing the group, and therefore it should not be assumed that he supported their position. Filing an amicus brief is going out of his way to support the group ... he wasn't the lawyer for the group, and he had no real need to file the brief. One can argue that he was filing the brief out of respect for the fact that the federal law was being misued, but that would be an even more dubious argument. Anyone can speculate on the reason why he filed the breif, and NARAL's assumption is probably more on target than not.
The fact is, Roberts was nominated because he has a very slim appeals court paper trail. It's fairly clear that he's a right-wing idealogue, and the fact that his wife works feverishly for an anti-abortion group leads most people to believe he is also anti-abortion. So, NARAL is probably correct in judging Roberts as being firmly in the anti-abortion camp. Did NARAL go too far to try to prove that? Maybe. Is there ad misleading? Yes, but not in the way that fact check.org claims. Should they pull their ad? Hmmm... did the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pull their ad?
The ad skirts the facts, but it is not false. It's no more misleading than most political ads these days, so why complain about this and not any others?
Let me clarify, I'm not a supporter of NARAL, and quite frankly, I would put some NARAL supporters into the same category as Swift Boat Veterens. However, NARAL has an agenda, just like any other political group, and can we truly fault these groups for acting according to their own interests? My only point was that NARAL's ad is misleading, but not completely untruthful as the factcheck article would have us believe.
Perhaps JBD is against the BS, but calling out this particular ad is rather odd, since it is neither completely BS nor is it significantly worse than most ads (check out the sliming that was done to Paul Hackett in the OH-2 race recently to see significantly more dishonest political advertisement).
I think I was fairly clear why it's a dubious argument that Roberts was filing a brief because his sensibilities about federal law were offended more than his sensibilitites on abortion. The point is it's an amicus brief. He didn't have to file it. It's much more of a stretch to believe his filing had to do with law than it had to do with his more than obvious connections to anti-abortion groups (i.e., his wife and his religious beliefs).
anon - I don't disagree that NARAL has every right to run ads promoting their point of view, or even criticizing someone for an opposite view - they can run whatever ad they want, as long as they can find some network to buy it. What I have a problem with is their use of misleading imagery in the ad as well as the sentence "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans." There is no evidence that this is the case - in fact, as I noted yesterday, it seems more likely that the opposite is true. NARAL's ad is indeed false and misleading.
Sure it's not the only one - but surely you can't suggest that if I'm going to criticize one ad I have to criticize them all? That would be a full time job. I call 'em as I see them, and I saw this one. It's running on national television, and concerns an issue of great national importance.
Finally, I believe Roberts filed the amicus brief in the abortion protesters case not as some John Q. Public interested lawyer, but as the deputy solicitor general of the United States. His brief was written on behalf of the Bush Administration as the stated position of the executive branch. It had nothing whatever to do with his personal beliefs.
I was about to take my cookies and move on to another site, because I think jdb has jumped the shark on this topic. However, since jerry is insistent on this issue, I'll try one more time. Here is a link to the NARAL response to the fact check article.
As I said, I don't necessarily agree with NARAL's position, but their reasoning seems a whole lot more sound than either the fact checker's or yours or jdbs. It only took a brief reading of the fact check article to see glaring logic holes and assumptions that the NARAL response points out. So, while I don't really agree with NARAL's point of view, I can't fault them for having it, and they did a better job of convincing me of the veracity of their statements.
So, the issue I was bringing up wasn't what Robert's actual motivation was, but whether or not the NARAL ad's claims were false. NARAL brings up some compelling points about Roberts being the second in command at the solicitor general's office, and he could have easily avoided this issue, if he wanted to. If his real point of view was the misuse of the law, is this the case that he would use as a platform? I dunno, but the point is, NARAL's construction is just as reasonable to believe as any other. And if NARAL wants to paint a picture of Roberts as extremely anti-abortion, they seem to have evidence to point to that conclusion.
Perhaps jdb just had a knee-jerk reaction to this particular ad, but I would hesitate to characterize it as false. Based on assumptions? Yes. Designed to be polarizing? Isn't that the point of NARAL in general? Is the ad "unfair" as jdb asserts? I don't really think so, given what NARAL hopes to accomplish, I can't see how this is unfair. NARAL believes Roberts is anti-abortion, and they wish to show, in shocking terms, how that can lead to extreme points of view. They're not saying he's advocating the use of violence, but rather that his ideology led him to the arguments he made in that case.
I guess it's just a matter of belief, since none of us know what Robert's actual motivations were. NARAL presents a convincing case of what could have been his motivations. Fact Check gives us a lame, error-riddled justification. Is it misleading to claim what someone else's motivations are? Yeah, but we do this all of the time. If jdb is going to hold up examples of "unfair" advertisement, this is not one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home