My anti-Roberts TV spot ...

[GarySeven]

... well, fantasy spot. This is my contribution to anyone out there who wants to actually make a TV spot but is struggling on how to boil all the complex reasons into why Roberts MUST be opposed into a simple statement:

FADE IN:

INT.
The stage is empty except for a stool, upon which sits a DISTINGUISHED AMERICAN (to be named later) of unquestioned Progressive petigree.

DISTINGUISHED AMERICAN

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court did not rule abortion was moral; it held that government should not interfere in our private moral choices - should not interfere because we have a right to privacy. Many opponents of abortion, and many legal scholars like Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., feel Roe v. Wade was wrong because the Constitution does not mention a right to privacy. They say court decisions should be based only on the explicit text of the Constitution.

Should all the laws that protect our right to vote then be abolished? The Constitution does not specifically say we have the right to vote. Should President Bush's order on stem cell research be ignored? The Constitution does not say a president may issue executive orders. The Constitution does not say we are innocent until proven guilty, may be taxed without representation - or even that there should be nine Supreme Court justices empowered to review judicial decisions. Yet these rights and privileges exist because they are embodied in the history and traditions of our legal culture.

The Constitution created a government of limited powers so that we may be free to exercise our many rights as human beings, even if that means we say or do things others find immoral or disagree with. Any candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court who does not understand that the Constitution protects individual rights - and not groups of individuals - does not deserve to be there.

Plain and simple

[BlueStateModerate]

1. A couple issues...

1. This is far too long for a 30-second TV spot.
2. A person of "unquestioned Progressive petigree" will be great for convincing progressives that Roberts is wrong, but those aren't the people that need convincing. I believe a moderate would be more effective, if one could be found.

[GarySeven]

2. Well, it is a fantasy spot ...

... So I am fantasizing that we can afford a 60-second spot and we that the viewers are not people who complain that their instant coffee isn't brewing fast enough in the microwave.

Second, I disagree with you about the spokesman. I think it is a moderate message; if it is delivered by a progressive it will gratify the moderates and astonish the radicals.