NARAL Communications Director Resigns

[struggle4progress]

By Mike Allen and Evelyn Nieves

Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A06

A central player has voted with his feet in the drama over NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to withdraw a television ad about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. that outraged conservatives had branded as false. Some Democrats said their side should be tougher, and one of them is David E. Seldin, who as NARAL's communications director had defended the ad's linking of Roberts to violent abortion opponents as "100 percent accurate." A day after Thursday night's announcement that the ad was being yanked, Seldin sent an e-mail to friends saying that he was leaving his job immediately.

Seldin, who had held the job for just over two years, wrote in the Friday afternoon e-mail: "I've been thinking for a while that I would most likely leave after the Supreme Court nomination fight was over, and by leaving now I can spend the next two weeks in Cape Cod with my family relaxing, instead of trying to find a place with good cell phone reception."

Seldin, who had pushed internally for a more aggressive approach to shaking up the Roberts debate than was favored by others at NARAL, notified the group Friday afternoon of his plans to leave. The 37-year-old worked in the White House press office under President Bill Clinton and was communications director for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Seldin's e-mail included ways to contact him and concluded: "You'll no doubt be hearing from me when I get back to town at the end of the month and start thinking about what I do next." <snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300849.html

[BamaLefty]

1. Thank God

Now can we get someone credible to get the org's message out?

[leesa]

5. Ah yes. More progressives caving in to fake GOP indignation

[Pirate Smile]

11. They can keep endorsing Republicans like Lincoln Chafee.

[Blue_Tires]

35. chafee is actually (relatively) pretty liberal

especially on environmental issues....he's a fiscal conservative, but on most issues, he's to the far left of someone like Lieberman

[Pirate Smile]

43. He is a vote for Frist for Majority Leader, Bolton for US Ambassador,

he voted for Janice Rogers Brown and Owens for Judges.

He needs to be defeated in 2006. Think about the extreme anti-abortion judges he voted to confirm.

The Dems tried to defeat them - without Lincoln Chafee's help.

Edit to add - He is a BushCo rubber stamp. All the "moderate" Republicans have been neutered by Karl Rove and they generally follow their marching orders just as well as Santorum and Coburn.

[beam me up scottie]

12. The left's indignation was VERY real.

And much deserved.
Stupid moves like that hurt us.

[Voltaire99]

17. Left? No, it was the weak-willed center giving comfort to the right wing.

The left isn't exercised. We oppose Roberts and favor abortion; these are goals more important than message board piques about cheap shots in ads.

The center, however, worked itself up into one of its cute little fits of self-indignation, declaring itself too pure to tell a lie. And by so doing both helped the Roberts nomination and hurt the pro-choice cause.

Realpolitik required thinking about what was to be gained by helping anti-choice forces. Bad move.

But then, the Democratic Party is doing all it can to desert the abortion cause. Don't be surprised if the abortion cause deserts it. See:

http://counterpunch.org/frank07232005.html

[beam me up scottie]

18. "helping anti-choice forces"?

"desert the abortion cause"?

Thanks for the much needed drama but I stand by what I posted.
The ad went too far and it hurt us.

[Mairead]

21. I get the feeling that your "us" and Voltaire99's might not be the same

nt

[Voltaire99]

36. Your "us" is meaningless.

Again, on the left, the only "us" that matters in the present instance is women empowered by law to choose abortion.

So the issue here is choice, threatened by Roberts. Missing the point, you may construe some harm to certain wimpish Democratics' political fortunes. That's your problem. Please don't confuse it with the left's interests.

[tx_dem41]

40. Yep...you're either for "us" or against "us".....

I believe a "great" political mind said that in the last few years. :eyes:

Some on the Left really took to that message.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Yep.

I recall hearing that too.

What it REALLY means is
"Either you agree with everything I say or you're the enemy".

I'd give Voltie the same response I gave the other brilliant mind, but I really don't want to get ts'd today.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Actually, what is meaningless is your posturing and divisiveness.

Explain to me how this ad was going to help "US" keep Roberts off the bench?

Actually, never mind.

You obviously have no idea how the confirmation process works and prefer to stand on the sidelines in a sustained fit of hysteria.

Good luck with that.:hi:

[Voltaire99]

63. Oh, dear. Am I supposed to feel told off?

Let's try to stick to the issue.

The issue is maintaining choice as a right for women. Are you for choice?

If you're for that goal, you can have done it no good by helping the right wing squawk about the NARAL ad. Being politically useful to enemies is a species of failure, to say the least.

But perhaps like some replying to this thread, you're against abortion. Then proclaim as much. If that's the reason you're exercised about the NARAL ad then say so. You won't turn into a pillar of salt--at least probably not.

For here is the concern and conviction of pro-choice voters. We are interested in having the party stay on the side of choice, but it is wobbling, straying, backing off, batting its eyelashes at the religiously-minded in hopes of a ride around the NASCAR track. We are going to correct that slippage, you see, come hell or high water. We aren't relenting on our demand for choice as the platform of the party; we're simply going to tell you and the leadership the way it is...

If, that is, you want our votes. And judging from polls showing majority support for abortion, you bet your ass you want them. Good, then: earn them. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

64. Bullshit.

People who criticize misleading ads are not "politically useful to enemies".

I'm supposed to advocate hysteria and misinformation because otherwise I'm not pro-choice?

What a piss poor defense for the inexcusable insults to anyone who doesn't agree with the "accepted" pov.

You do not get to decide who is and isn't pro choice no matter how important you are in your own mind.

Your posts read like those of a religious fundamentalist and there is no point in arguing with zealots.

Wake up. Blind faith in leaders and organizations is dangerous.

I don't allow myself to be bullied or brainwashed by keyboard commandos.

I'll let you get back to the Church of the One.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

59. Personal attacks are against DU rules:

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

But they seem to be used frequently by those who are unable to back up their POV with facts or evidence.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. Interesting. What evidence do you have that backs up your POV?

[beam me up scottie]

61. You disagree ?

What a shock.:eyes:

[brentspeak]

24. "We...favor abortion"?

The "abortion cause"?

By all means, I want the Democratic Party to desert the abortion "cause". It's not a "cause" I want to be associated with.

[Voltaire99]

38. Too bad.

What you want to be associated with is up to you, Brent. Your party will support abortion. If, that is, it wants our votes.

It's a quid pro quo, my boy. And you'd better grasp it now, because you won't win a single election otherwise.

[Igel]

30. The reality-based community mustn't be like the center.

After all, "[t]he center ... worked itself up into one of
its cute little fits of self-indignation, declaring itself too
pure to tell a lie."

I wholeheartedly agree.  Not telling lies a really sucky
premise on which to reality.  Who knows--not saying things
that are lies might even lead to saying things that are true. 
:sarcasm: 

[beam me up scottie]

52. But but but, the OTHER side does it !!!

Why can't we play on women's fears like they do ?

Scare tactics are ineffective and anyone who advocates using them is delusional.

[Igel]

69. If the other side when around killing small children and

blaming it on liberals, would we start going around killing small children and blaming it on conservatives?

I don't like trying to win arguments through intentional falsehood. It gets too hard remember what's been said, on the one hand, and means that when the other side is caught in a lie, all I have to fall back on is my own hypocrisy. It's not something I like to contemplate.

[eggman67]

41. No

"The center, however, worked itself up into one of its cute little fits of self-indignation, declaring itself too pure to tell a lie. And by so doing both helped the Roberts nomination and hurt the pro-choice cause."

Telling the lie in the first place helped the Roberts nomination and hurt the pro-choice cause.

If you don't commit the offense, you can't be called on it. Ask Bill Clinton. Isn't funny that all the bullshit we had to go through on that could have been easily avoided by having an otherwise clearly intelligent man, who knew full well he was under constant scrutiny and what the consequences could be, simply choose to not get his dick sucked?

[Eloriel]

44. Very real and based on lies about us. Not a healthy combination.

The left are a bunch of disgusting wimps, increasingly so, frankly.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

39. Ah, another DUer eager to believe Repugs and MSM

Here are the actual facts, should you care to inform yourself:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/roberts_extremists.cfm


More actual facts include the FACT that our side is comprised primarily of wimps who couldn't/wouldn't stand up for one another for anything. I think it's farkin' miserable and appalling that THEIR side can get away with lies -- with utter impunity, but OUR side can't even tell the truth and "get away with it."

:grr:

[beam me up scottie]

54. Who do you think you are?

How dare you accuse anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with you
"eager to believe Repugs and MSM".

You are either for us or against us is commonly used by a the other side.

And anyone who parrots that message is aiding them more than those who doesn't agree with YOUR worldview.

[Eric J in MN]

2. NARAL should release a new ad within the next week.

It would get a lot of free play on the news, since they are at the center of controversy.

If they wait too long, it may not get free play.

[LSU_Subversive]

4. good suggestion. lets hope they think of that. n/t

[kikiek]

6. It's already ready to go. Didn't you hear the "spin" of how can they

believe the new ad that is going to be released? Media is fueling the fire of course.

[kikiek]

3. Rove and his lackeys smear and lie and the media is silent. One ad

that is essentially accurate but not clear and they are all over the NARAL. Guess they thought it would be ok since the repugs do it all the time.

[Teaser]

7. It was a shitty ad

We can be hard hitting and make better ads.

[Miss Chybil]

8. Yep, even Jon Stewart pointed out it's "shittiness." nt

[guruoo]

15. Shitty or not...

it only makes it worse to back down
once the stand is taken.

[meganmonkey]

25. I beg to differ

I think the ability to recognize and acknowledge mistakes is one thing that makes us different from the RW. Their stubbornness in the face of contradictory evidence is part of what makes them look like assholes. Remember when Bush was asked (during a debate, IIRC) to name mistakes he had made in his first term, and he just stuttered and couldn't even say one mistake....he just looked like a jackass, since everyone knew he had made collosal mistakes.

[NashVegas]

32. Not In This Case

Keep in mind, the terralerts all over the place. The Republicans are playing the way they are because it makes them look tough to their constituents and draws votes away from the swishy liberals.

[rodeodance]

34. yes, unfortuately, it has come to this!!

[LSU_Subversive]

9. i don't know about the 100% accurate part, but maybe his decision

and the left's reactions to the pull will emphasize that we have to stay strong, even in the face of criticism. it's no wonder that the media hopped on the issue. they're mostly funded by the right-wing, so it should be automatically assumed that they'll attack. when we decide to be aggressive, we have to brace ourselves and ready for the upcoming storm.

"Some Democrats said their side should be tougher, and one of them is David E. Seldin, who as NARAL's communications director had defended the ad's linking of Roberts to violent abortion opponents as "100 percent accurate."

[Lexingtonian]

10. they've been f---ing up a fair amount lately

I think they've lost their bearings on the political terrain. Whether this ad or the Jamie Langevin thing were right or wrong or whatever, some bunch of putzes in the organization are behind the times and are in some sort of reactive mode that is starting to lead them into backfires.

[confludemocrat]

13. Sorry ass climbdown aided and abetted by Al Franken on air america because

he didn't want this matter and his take on it to conflict in any perceived way with his upcoming book's title: "Truth", even though essentially the point was correctly made and the context and Robert's philosophy and track record and weasely speaking about it supported the accuracy of the allegation being made in the ad.

[OzarkDem]

14. Why did NARAL have a man in the job?

Not to discriminate, but I always assumed NARAL had women leaders.

[davidinalameda]

16. someone had to pay

and this guy is paying

NARAL made a huge mistake in running this ad

they lost so much credibility with this and aided the right wingers pushing Roberts

[LincolnMcGrath]

19. I helped pay for that ad! Then they pulled a Dick Durbin on me!!!!!!

Never Again!! Never

[PSPS]

20. Nobody who will "spend the next two weeks in Cape Cod" is of use to me.

[Eloriel]

45. And he doesn't feel you're of any use to him, so you're even.

So fucking what?

[beam me up scottie]

55. Personal attacks?

Just the kind of tactic that caused this mess, and heartily endorsed by the republican party.

Good job, soldier.

[underpants]

22. Funny I don't remember this kind of reporting on the Swift Boat ads

ABC WNT reported on it and then followed up the next night on NARAL pulling the ad. I don't seem to remember such a close dissection of facts and implications in the Swift Boat ads .... or pre-war wordsmithing....or any other news story over the last 5 years.

Is it just me?

[DanCa]

23. Yeah it all seems selective dont it. (nt)

[eggman67]

37. I also don't remember...

...the Kerry campaign screaming blue murder about the SB ads. This is part of the problem. The Reps scrutinize everything the Dems say looking for anything they can scream about. And then they scream loud and long. The hammer never, ever stops swinging. Ads like this one become a shot in the foot.

Look at the reaction, or lack thereof, to the SB ads. The Dems seemed to foolishly believe that the general public would just ignore it and it would go away if they didn't "dignify it" with a response. Quite the opposite happened. Not responding loudly and quickly left only one voice in the arena and created the impression that where there's smoke there's fire. Whether or not that impression was true is irrelevant.

The SB ads could have been turned into a bullet in the foot of the Reps with immediate full very public disclosure of all records. Choosing not to do that was a grave error IMO.

[bpilgrim]

26. what isn't TRUE in AD?!? -John Roberts sided with anti-choice extremists.

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

John Roberts Sided with Operation Rescue, Convicted Clinic Bomber and Anti-Choice Extremists

Summary:

In Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, then Principal Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored and submitted for the United States an amicus curiae brief, siding with the notorious anti-choice group Operation Rescue and some of the world’s most aggressive and violent anti-choice extremists, Michael Bray, Randall Terry, Patrick Mahoney, and others. In the amicus brief and during oral argument, John Roberts maintained that Operation Rescue’s unlawful behavior and “military-style tactics” used to block women from accessing reproductive-health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women and that a civil rights remedy was inappropriate.

more...
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/roberts_extremists.cfm

folks need to KNOW he is a RW Hack period.

peace

[Gormy Cuss]

27. The presentation is misleading

I'm annoyed at NARAL because with minor tweaking this would have been a powerful ad against Roberts. Making the time line clear would have strengthened the argument that he enabled the later bombing by his amicus brief. I wonder if NARAL screened the ad outside of its own echo chamber. It is right for the communications director to resign because it was his job to bulletproof the ad, and he blew it.

[bpilgrim]

28. so you think Robberts "enabled the later bombing by his amicus brief"

but you think this ad is "misleading" :crazy:

peace

[Gormy Cuss]

29. Wasn't that NARAL's point?

I used 'enabled' here because the ad seems to be implying a relationship between the two events and that without Roberts' earlier action, the later action may not have happened. I'm sorry if the term was confusing.


On edit: I'm clear as mud this morning. I guess the caffeine hasn't kicked in. 'Enabled' as in creating a legal sanction to the Operation Rescue activities, not in the sense of actually making the bombing possible.

[Igel]

31. What isn't true? ...

the punchline.

That by arguing that a law was inappropriately being applied so as to set bad precedents if upheld, he excused the tactics used--even though he also denounced the tactics in the same court appearance. So he excused what he denounced? Ah--but the denunciation wasn't included in the ad, and the excusal was attributed, not a quote.

This was one ad that started off accurate, and then, to actually make the ad meaningful for people that can't distinguish between arguing law and arguing for a client, veered off into error.

As a kind of vague parallel: The use of drugs (whether alcohol or crack). One could easily claim that fetuses are a protected class, entitled to civil rights protections, and that what the mothers are doing is a civil rights violation, a conspiracy entered into by them and the purveyors of the drugs. In fact, by limiting the abuse to crack users, one could make the case that the victims (at least at one point in the '90s) were primarily black--an even clearer civil rights violation.

This would have been a faulty argument leading to bad law. A lawyer arguing narrowly for his client should have argued against extending the civil rights laws in such a case to help his clients. But a lawyer interested in sound law would make the same argument to defend sound legal principles. That would not mean he was arguing on behalf of negligent mothers and crack dealers, even though the outcome's the same.

There is a way to argue that Roberts was taking an anti-choice side in this. But you have to realize that by setting up women seeking abortion as a protected subset of a protected class, "all women", you then raise the bar for any kinds of legal limits to be imposed on abortion after the first trimester. Because they're a protected class, and any such law would be targetting a protected class. But that's complicated: The claim that Roberts argued for setting free a clinic bomber is so much easier to understand.

edited to repair a sloppy cut/paste op.

[bpilgrim]

33. "the punchline." - lol

that's a good one... everything today is about the puch-line, true, especally in MARKETING but in this case we are go'n to BURN'M at the stake, eh?

Robbert's ACTIONS speak louder than his words, and in this case only helps to identify him for what he IS, a RW EXTREMIST and defender of the same.

in this 'culture war' he is RW RADICAL and should be NO WHERE near our 'SUPREME' court, imho.

fuck it, if the limo 'libs' one form a circular firing squad against one of our own groups try'n to stop this madness you can count me OUT!

peace

[beam me up scottie]

56. What did you think the ad was going to accomplish?

Do you really think it would have an effect on the Senators?
There are much more intelligent ways to get the message out.
This was comparable to the "Kerry kills babies" meme.
And the voters that would buy into this hysteria are not in a position to help defeat him.

Nobody in this thread, well ALMOST nobody, wants Roberts to get confirmed.

[bpilgrim]

62. help spread the word that he is a RW Extremist & defender of RW Extremist

the msg isn't aimed at the Senators it is aimed at their constituents.

"This was comparable to the "Kerry kills babies" meme."

did kerry support the war or fight to end it? big difference and not "comparable" at all, imho.

"Nobody in this thread, well ALMOST nobody, wants Roberts to get confirmed."

but the limo-libs are not willing to fight back HARD apparently :shrug:

the circle firing squad is what gets me.

peace

[beam me up scottie]

65. Of course it was aimed at their constituents.

But what good did it do?
How many intelligent people are going to listen to an ad like that?
If you want to reach the zealots-on EITHER side, you produce ads like that.
But who needs them? The leftist zealots are on our side already (and apparently some of them are posting on this thread) and the zealots on the right never will be.
I thought the idea was to reach the moderates and encourage them to think about the repercussions of confirming this nominee and to rally the pro-choice voters.
NARAL can and should do better and there is nothing wrong with criticizing the ad or the organization.
It's called dissent and it's much more beneficial to the cause than being ditto heads and rubber-stamping everything that they do.

The bullying and divisive posts on this thread are sickening and remind me of what goes on at freeperville.

Thank you for your thoughtful response and for not accusing me of being anti-abortion because I voiced my opinion.

Peace to you as well

[bpilgrim]

66. David Sirota: The Resurgence of Movement Politics

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050829&s=sirota

Editor's Note: This essay was adapted from a speech to the United Steelworkers Union on August 8 in Dawson, Pennsylvania.

Progressives have spent the last four years in a state of shock, unable to believe what's going on in this country, and holding out hope that things will get better by themselves. We watch as poverty rises and job growth declines; corporate profits skyrocket while employee healthcare and retirement benefits get eliminated; CEO pay rises as workers' wages fall. Worse, the core economic issues that should be at the center of America's political debate have been depoliticized, while the issues of personal and religious conviction that should be removed from politics have been most politicized, leaving us with a political debate almost entirely divorced from Americans' day-to-day challenges.

This reality is shocking. But it shouldn't be surprising, because it is thirty years in the making. Conservatives long ago realized what our side is only starting to comprehend: that successful politics starts with successful ideological movements, and that those movements are a prerequisite to any serious partisan gain.

In the context of President Bush nominating John Roberts, a wealthy corporate lawyer, to the Supreme Court, it is important to note that much of this movement began in 1971 with a memo from another wealthy-corporate-lawyer-turned-Supreme-Court-Justice, Lewis Powell. He argued that conservatives needed to ally with corporate interests to manufacture an ideological movement that would justify all of the economic results we progressives are stunned to see today. Powell, corporate interests and major conservative funders ultimately took to heart three very important points:

First, they understood that movements based on ideology and ideas are far more powerful than loyalties to any political party. Though many in the Washington, DC, bubble believe that Americans think of their world in purely partisan terms, it just isn't true. People think of things in terms of their values and their worldview. Even the most politically disengaged citizen has some sort of personal ideology, and that ideology will always be far more powerful than any loyalty to a party label.

Second, conservatives understood that if the goal is seeing a more conservative country, then it doesn't matter whether conservatism comes from Republicans or bought-off Democrats. In their subsequent efforts, that meant conservatives were willing not only to go after liberal Democrats, but also moderate Republicans. It is why, even today, you see right-wing icons like Grover Norquist loudly criticizing Republican turncoats--because conservatives realize that movements are built with carrots and sticks, and that those sticks put other potential defectors on notice that there are consequences to ideological disloyalty.

But these conservatives were not ignorant of partisan concerns, which gets to the final point: They understood that if they built a movement around a conservative ideology, the political benefits would naturally flow almost exclusively to the innately more conservative Republican Party. Get people to believe in a movement that supports destroying the government, destroying the tax base and permitting corporations to do whatever they want regardless of social cost, and you get people to be far more loyal and willing to devote time to the GOP than you would if you spent resources on purely partisan activities.

There are many who are understandably nervous about emulating anything that comes from the right. But progressives must get over our disgust at how the right has applied its odious ideology to these tactics, and use some of these tactics ourselves.

discuss...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x147209

the 'educated' are the most fooled... and to fuel a movement we need weTHepeople. the elite are what got us into this mess and i am no longer very concerned about their concerns these days.

in my OP i asked, what was said that wasn't true in that ad?

peace

[beam me up scottie]

67. The facts in an ad do not need to be false in

order for the ad to be misleading.
The pukes are pros at this.
I am a PETA supporter and I have long admired their goals.
However, I do not agree with all of their tactics.
Some of their stunts are too radical and end up turning off would be supporters and actually enable their enemies to use them against PETA.
I still support them and still believe in their mission, but the fact is, if you want people to listen to your message and gain support, you don't accomplish that by frightening and intimidating little kids at school.
ALF is a radical animal rights movement. They do not participate in political activities nor do they try to convert people.
I also support their efforts.
PETA needs to make up its mind which world they want to live in, they cannot be in effective in both.
The same goes for NARAL. If they want to convince people that Roberts is a dangerous extremist they won't do it by appearing to become what he is.

It's my opinion, no more nor less valid than that of anyone else.

[bpilgrim]

71. Emotional, not factual, ads win skeptical consumers

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=29174

"Consumers who are very skeptical about the truth of advertising claims are more responsive to emotionally appealing ads than ones peppered with information, according to a new study.

The finding comes from work by researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle University, and Washington State University who examined consumers' responses to advertising, including brand beliefs, responses to informational and emotional appeals, efforts to avoid advertising, attention to ads and reliance on ads versus other information sources.

As part of the study, researchers showed consumers eight television commercials, half of which were defined as emotional, half as informational. For example, an emotional ad for Ernest and Julio Gallo wine emphasized a familial atmosphere at the winery and surrounding vineyards, while an informational ad for Joy dishwashing liquid showed how effectively the product removed baked-on foods.

Emotional ads are characterized as providing an emotional experience that is relevant to the use of the brand; informational ads predominantly provide clear brand data. All four of the emotional ads rated lower in providing viewers product information than the four informational ads. Surprisingly, said the researchers, consumers who considered themselves highly skeptical of all ads were persuaded less by informational ads than they were by emotional ads like the wine commercial. Also, they found that non-skeptics were more responsive to informational advertising.

source...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=29174

again what wasn't true in the ad :shrug:

don't bring a knife to a gun fight... you will lose every time.

peace

[Jim Sagle]

42. NARAL - just another collection of Dukakis wannabes.

:puke:

The ad was true. The indignation was fake. Will progressives EVER learn to fight?

[Eloriel]

46. It would've helped if ANYone on the left had defended them, but

that didn't happen, did it?

[Jim Sagle]

51. You're right - and I just don't get it.

You'd think that after so many years, the idea of not eating your own would take hold.

[stepnw1f]

49. Another Right Wing Idiotic Statement

And you have a star too... how special.

[Jim Sagle]

53. What's spesshhhhhul is your stupid insult.

[stepnw1f]

68. My Apologies Jim... (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

58. DLC is going to embrace Operation Rescue

They don't care about women's rights anymore than they care about GLBT rights. The only thing they care about is grabbing power for themselves. In order to do that, they have to destroy anyone that doesn't parrot their ideology of appeasement.

Dave Seldin was one of those that wanted to call Roberts for what he was, a rightwing extremist that had said that women's clinics did not enjoy the protection of federal law, just as he had earlier said that the killing of gays was not a hate crime.

Seldin resigned when he saw NARAL being pressured by Democratic leaders to succumb to the rightwing onslaught. Shame!

[nolabels]

70. No doubt

Like you might even get hit with less flack around here if you went straight for an endorsement of *, rather than having a differing view about "CHOICE" that was different than some of these other posters. Like don't shoot already, my hands are in the air :woohoo:

The biggest thing about this bush chum is that he totally pro big business and that is why he was selected mostly. Too bad some smaller type businesses didn't have something for them on the level of a NARAL. The chamber of commerce people are really taking a lot their members for a ride with the their support of the NEOCON agenda