Text 14591, 182 rader
Skriven 2005-08-13 21:55:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: unfair attack on Roberts
================================
On 08-13-05, JOHN HULL said to TIM RICHARDSON:


JH>Tim, that ad was a parody put out by Rush Limbaugh, just like the dozens
JH>of other parodies he has done over the years.  The difference this time,
JH>however, is that some dumb ass, humor impaired liberal heard it and ran
JH>with it as if it were real, and THAT is what caused all the ruckus.


There's too many people with high positions in government named in this to
there be any "parody" involved.


You don't make stuff up, play it on a nation-wide media, with the likes of
Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter looking over your shoulder. There'd be a
lawsuit real quick.



EIB Operation Rescue: NARAL Can't Pull Ad from EIB Network


NARAL Can't Pull Ad from EIB Network

August 12, 2005


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


Well-l-l-l-l. Well-l-l-l-l. (story) "An abortion
rights group is withdrawing a heavily criticized television
ad that linked John Roberts to violent anti-abortion
activists, saying its attempt to illuminate the
Supreme Court nominee's record has been 'misconstrued.'"


(Laughing.) Let me define this for you. You people
are too stupid to understand what NARAL was trying to say
in their ad. "After protests by conservatives, NARAL
Pro-Choice America said Thursday night it would pull
the ad that began running this week.  'We regret that
many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement
about Mr. Roberts' record,' NARAL President Nancy Keenan
said.


'Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement
has become a distraction from the serious discussion we
hoped to have with the American public,' she said in
a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who
earlier in the day had urged the group to withdraw
the ad." Specter, who is pro-choice, said that the ad's
not true and it's unfair, and it's not helpful to the
pro-choice cause which he supports. Now, you can say
that the conservatives got this ban, and I'm happy to
take credit for it, or partial credit, but I actually
think that Specter's letter really had more to do
with it than anything else. He's a pro-choice guy. I find
it interesting that it says here in the story, "Senate
Democrats have not taken a position on the ad. Sen.
Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's
top Democrat, told The Associated Press that ads for and
against Roberts wouldn't sway senators weighing the
confirmation." But no Democrat has yet spoken out
against the ad!


Now, they haven't confirmed their support for it, but
they haven't spoken out against it, but all of a
sudden the Washington Post, you got an E. J. Dionne, Jr.,
column today -- by the way, E. J. deserves some
credit because E. J. says the reason the ad should have been
canceled is because it's blatantly false and he gives
details about how it's false. The others that are
claiming this ad should be dropped are simply saying,
"It's hurting the cause, drop the ad." As in, "My
gosh we gotta do something to stop hurting the cause
here."


Never mind that it's false, never mind that it's full
of lies. No, no, no, don't pull it for that reason, pull
it because it's hurting us. So we've got the Washington
Post editorial, E. J. Dionne, Jr., and I think, what
is it, the Boston Globe or somebody's editorialized
against this ad today? Just a few of them out there that I've
found that I have in the stacks of stuff. But where
was this earlier in the week? Where is all this outrage
from the left earlier in the week? Folks, I'm telling you
this is a huge chink in their armor. This would not
have happened 20 years ago. They would not have had to
pull this ad 20 years ago and I actually do think that it
is conservative pressure and I do think it's something
else. Remember that Stanley Greenberg survey that I
told you about yesterday that essentially says to the
Democrats, "No matter how much Bush is hated on war
and no matter how bad people think the economy is, you
people aren't going to capitalize at all because you
have no credibility on issues of morality and
ethics," and I think that probably had something to do --
there's a lot of factors involved but, ladies and gentlemen,
we are compassionate here at the EIB Network, as you all
know, and we are fair. We exist, ladies and
gentlemen, to be fair, to show both sides of the issue, and I
find it, frankly, unfortunate that in the land with the
First Amendment, particularly about political speech, a
group has been forced to pull its ad because it's not true.


That shouldn't matter.


The First Amendment says in political speech you can
say whatever you want to say, and it's up to the
people to ferret it out. I understand, I have researched
this.


CNN has even pulled this ad. CNN has pulled this ad.


So NARAL has gotten the ad pulled. But this just isn't
right, ladies and gentlemen. As a show of magnanimity
and compassion and in an illustration of fairness, I
am going to air the NARAL ad during the program today,
at least the audio to it. They didn't buy any time here,
so we're going to do it free of charge. They may have
pulled the ad but we think you need to hear it since
NARAL's position is you're too stupid to understand
it.


"We regret that many people have misconstrued our
recent advertisement over Mr. Roberts' record. The debate
over the advertisement has become a distraction." Well,
we're going to try to cut through some of this fog and we
will pay the ad for you throughout the program today as a
show of solidarity, compassion, and understanding to
NARAL. Let's play it now.


(Playing of NARAL ad.)


(Playing of Roberts spoof ad.)


See? You see how fair we are here at the EIB Network?
NARAL may have pulled their ad, but not here. They
didn't buy any time here so they can't pull it, and
we want to help. They clearly intended for as many
Americans as possible to hear and see this ad and
we're going to come to their rescue today ladies and
gentlemen, our own Operation Rescue to make sure the
NARAL ad gets the exposure it deserves, free of
charge, courtesy EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT


We just had a drive-by caller who said, "Rush, isn't
what happened with the NARAL ad sort of like NARAL
aborting the ad?" No, sir, this is like a
partial-birth abortion. That ad lived. That ad saw the light of
day, that ad was out there for a while, and then NARAL
aborted it. So NARAL had a partial abortion of their
own ad, which, of course, I guess they could say
illustrates the safety of partial-birth abortions.


END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Article...




---
*Durango b301 #PE* corrupts)
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)