http://dangerousdan.us/?p=1090 Thoughts and musings on the world Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:26:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://dangerousdan.us/?p=1090&cpage=1#comment-11209 Dangerous Dan » A Real Smear Campaign Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:01:58 +0000 http://dangerousdan.us/?p=1090#comment-11209 [...] Yesterday, I noted Stephen Elliot’s silly accusation that there’s a smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan merely because people brought up something she publicly said in the past. Well, now we can see a real smear campaign at work. Pro-abortion group NARAL has released an ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts that is blatantly deceptive. It accuses Roberts of defending violence against abortion clinics, up to and including bombing, on the basis that he once filed a brief contending that certain federal anti-discrimination laws did not apply to anti-abortion protestors, even though he agreed that the blockades in question were still illegal (trespassing). Only the brief was seven years before the Birmingham clinic featured in the ad was bombed. Several memos from his work in the Reagan administration also clearly show his profound opposition to violence against clinics and their employees. You can read the details on non-partisan factcheck.org and you can view the ad itself here. The ad is trying to associate Roberts with the bombing and making it seem that Roberts’s brief was in defense of clinic bombers, which wasn’t the case at all. He wasn’t even the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, he merely submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the government which disagreed with the interpretation of the law being abused. [...] [...] Yesterday, I noted Stephen Elliot’s silly accusation that there’s a smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan merely because people brought up something she publicly said in the past. Well, now we can see a real smear campaign at work. Pro-abortion group NARAL has released an ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts that is blatantly deceptive. It accuses Roberts of defending violence against abortion clinics, up to and including bombing, on the basis that he once filed a brief contending that certain federal anti-discrimination laws did not apply to anti-abortion protestors, even though he agreed that the blockades in question were still illegal (trespassing). Only the brief was seven years before the Birmingham clinic featured in the ad was bombed. Several memos from his work in the Reagan administration also clearly show his profound opposition to violence against clinics and their employees. You can read the details on non-partisan factcheck.org and you can view the ad itself here. The ad is trying to associate Roberts with the bombing and making it seem that Roberts’s brief was in defense of clinic bombers, which wasn’t the case at all. He wasn’t even the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, he merely submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the government which disagreed with the interpretation of the law being abused. [...]

]]>