MyDD :: New TV Ad Opposing John Roberts

New TV Ad Opposing John Roberts

by aaronforamerica, Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:24:40 PM EST

A noble cause to target the Senate as well as Roberts. By the way, unless it falls through, starting on September 6th, I am going to be in D.C. liveblogging the hearings for People for the American Way. MyDD will be the place to be for the Roberts hearings. Sign up to receive MyDD via Bloglines to follow it. And hey, there are a lot of elections coming up, so even if you don't plan to follow the hearings closely, sign up anyway. --Chris

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone here for your help in producing this new ad opposing the nomination of John Roberts. The script was developed off suggestions and ideas from feedback from bloggers and netroots activists. We wanted to produce an ad that could be shown in red and blue states and put pressure on Senators around the country to oppose Roberts's confirmation. For those of you who have not yet seen the ad, please feel free to view it at
www.StopJohnRoberts.com

Many of you all expressed the need to change the way we talk about issues, and heed the advice of those such as George Lakoff and Thomas Frank. We think this ad does exactly that, with the issue of school prayer.

This ad explains that we are all religious minorities in different parts of the country, and we must all act to stop John Roberts and others from allowing the government to meddle in religion. A recent poll done for People for the American Way showed that 73 percent of Americans believe that a strict interpretation of separation of church and state helps to guarantee the freedom of religion among all Americans. Among those believing in a strict interpretation are 79 percent of independents and 62 percent of people who attend church regularly.

If everyone makes a small donation of $10 we could run this ad in Montana and Ohio during the opening weeks of the confirmation hearings. With donations of $25, we may be able to target Rhode Island and Maine. In Montana and Ohio, progressive leaders such as Brian Schweitzer and Paul Hackett have showed us that we can successfully change the way we frame debates on issues in red states. This is what we hope this ad does with school prayer. Conrad Burns and Mike DeWine are already feeling the heat on their reelection campaigns.

Do Burns and DeWine agree with Roberts's desire to enable the government to meddle with religion? In the Supreme Court case of Lee v. Weisman, Roberts argued school-sponsored prayer at public school graduations, claiming the ceremonies shouldn't be considered mandatory. How radical are Roberts's other views? We might know more if we had the same access as the administration to the documents Roberts wrote as a public servant under President George H.W. Bush.

John Roberts demonstrate his disregard for our rights to religious liberty and privacy, and I hope all of you join us in this campaign to urge our Senators to oppose his confirmation!

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment

Constructive Criticism (none / 0)

I like the ad, I'd just make two points:

The voiceover is a bit too fast. Good voice, just too fast. Still, with a big enough media buy it could work.
Aren't there any other pictures of Roberts to use? The oft-seen photo of smiling John Roberts makes him look to nice to be used in a negative.

Other than that, it's good.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 08:40:15 PM EST

Re: Constructive Criticism (none / 0)

Thanks for the suggestions, we'll definitely try and slow down the audio if we can get it done in time. Unfortunately, we couldn't get any other pictures of Roberts, but please let us know if anyone has any that are available. Keep the suggestions coming, we're definitely open to more ideas.

by aaronforamerica on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 12:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have no idea what this means. (none / 0)

"Sign up to receive MyDD via Bloglines to follow it. And hey, there are a lot of elections coming up, so even if you don't plan to follow the hearings closely, sign up anyway. --Chris"

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 12:00:10 AM EST

Bloggregator: (none / 0)

it uses RSS (really simple syndication) feeds to collect whatever blogs you want on one page together for easy browsing. You can also use a program like SharpReader to do the same thing.

Are we safer yet?

by catastrophile on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 12:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloggregator: (1.00 / 0)

I would suggest Amphetadesk, which has significant advantages. It is decentralized, but unlike SharpReader, does not neet the insanely huge, overwrought, Microsft "Net Framework" system. It is a sourceForge project, and one of the ones that is avilable for both Windows and Linux. We will all graduate to Linux someday, unless we become pathetic Micrsoft junkies, or have highly exotoc apps that won't be available in Linux or O/s X for awhile.

Look for the totaly free Amphetadesk program at:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/amphetadesk

by blues on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 03:40:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh, heh: (none / 0)

This is a program that opens a web browser. Might as well use Bloglines.

Are we safer yet?

by catastrophile on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 02:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloggregator: (none / 0)

and why not just visit MyDD? Is there any difference?

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 11:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0)

Bloglines has notifier programs available, so when something is posted to the front page here you can get some sort of signal. I'm sure that's really useful to some people.

It also lets you visit one site to scan headlines, rather than ten/fifty/eleventy different sites, if you're into that sort of thing.

Are we safer yet?

by catastrophile on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 02:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Problem (none / 0)

The problem with your ad is that you are basing it on statements/arguements/briefs from Roberts as a Solicitor General, not as a Judge, and therefore, they do not necessarily reflect his own personal beliefs (is there a lawyer alive that hasn't at least once argued a side of a case that they personally disagreed with?).

I have a hunch that these arguements do indeed reflect his actual beliefs, but it is an important distinction that must be made.

As for the mentioned poll (which I am sure has evenly distributed demographics, right? I mean, I am sure the People for the American Way wouldn't skew that at all, would they?), the thing is flawed because there is - at least according to the Constitution - no such thing as separation between church and state. It merely prohibits the establishment of a government-sponsored religion. Not that that is how it has been interpreted for the last 30 years, but that's another story. So, Roberts is correctly interpretting the original intent of the Constitution, which of course, makes him a radical.

"Don't get stuck on stupid" - Lt. Gen. Honore

by RepTroll on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:54:38 PM EST

What part of (none / 0)

"no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

I suppose when President Thomas Jefferson stated that the purpose of the First Amendment was to create "a wall of separation between Church and State" . . . that was just some liberal activism, right?

Would you feel the same way if some public school started incorporating ritual circles and calling on the Great Mother into their ceremonies? That's what equal access is all about -- if one group gets the right, everybody does.

Are we safer yet?

by catastrophile on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 02:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What part of (none / 0)

I believe I understand that section of the First Amendment just fine, thank you.

Yes, I certainly do believe liberal activism was involved in creating the "wall" - but not on the part of Jefferson, but by the SCOTUS in their rediculous misinterpretation of Jefferson's words in their 1947 Everson v. Board of Education ruling.

I could go on and on, but instead, I will just provide some links that explain it all a lot better than I can:

The Myth Behind Separation of Church and State

Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State

Federalist Patriot Archive: Public Prayer

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State

If you understand the actual intent behind Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association it should be clear that the wall as espoused by the Left just doesn't stand up.

"Don't get stuck on stupid" - Lt. Gen. Honore

by RepTroll on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 04:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Le's'see . . . (none / 0)

From your links:

"His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments."

Which separation has been eroded on every front since the federal government asserted its total dominance in the Civil War. Besides which, the Everson decision wasn't based on Jefferson's quote, but on the 14th Amendment, which extended Constitutional protections against encroachment on individual rights from the federal government to the state governments. The Jefferson quote was cited as affirmation that the 1st Amendment was intended to create such a wall, and the 14th Amendment was cited as extending that wall to the states -- having been passed in order to counteract abuses by state governments against their citizens.

"Rather, the primary distinction for Jefferson is promoting religion for the health of the republic (the political purpose of religion) versus promoting it for the salvation of people's souls. It seems that government may indirectly support the former but never the latter."

That sounds about right. A sort of generic, optional deference to faith for the purposes of national morale -- not the active promotion of a particular faith or worldview. Certainly not the kind of narrow-minded theocracy that these people promote.

"This fundamental violation of federalist principle was the central issue in 2003, when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore defied an order by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's justice building rotunda."

Cutting right to the heart of the dispute: It's been settled that including Moses and the 10 Commandments in displays is not inherently unConstitutional, as long as such displays are historical in nature -- such as the Supreme Court display, which includes Moses among other historical lawgivers, not as a religious figure. Yeah, placing a 2-ton granite 10 Commandments monument by itself in a courtroom lobby is total theocratic bull$#!+.

And finally:

"The 'wall' was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values."

Yep. The founders understood that theocracy pollutes faith. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

Hey, this is fun. What else ya got?

Are we safer yet?

by catastrophile on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 05:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Le's'see . . . (none / 0)

"His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments."

Which separation has been eroded on every front since the federal government asserted its total dominance in the Civil War.

You'll certainly get no arguement from me on this point!

the Everson decision wasn't based on Jefferson's quote ... The Jefferson quote was cited as affirmation that the 1st Amendment was intended to create such a wall

Yeah, I got that, but I would still argue that the quote was misinterpreted to give credence to the idea that the 1st amendment creates the wall, which I don't believe it does.

and the 14th Amendment was cited as extending that wall to the states

I have to admit, I am on the fence on this part of it; on one hand, I can see the reasoning behind this, but on the other, I see it as a violation of the 10th amendment. Jefferson himself clearly had no problem with the states getting involved in religion, but didn't want the feds to do so. As a governor, he more than once issued proclamations for days of prayer, but steadfastly refused to do so as president.

Yep. The founders understood that theocracy pollutes faith. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

You won't find me moving to Iran anytime soon!

Hey, this is fun.

I concur!

"Don't get stuck on stupid" - Lt. Gen. Honore

by RepTroll on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is (none / 0)

something that seems lost on most people . . . yeah, "the Union" was originally conceived as something more like a treaty organization than a single nation.

But it was also conceived by business people, and a desire for homogeneity in commerce and custom has reduced the state governments almost to the status of administrative bodies. Whether that's "good" or "bad" is debatable, but it's the political and legal situation we have today.

Franklin predicted that we would be known as Americans abroad, and here at home know each other as New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Virginians, et cetera. This is largely not the case, except when it comes to sports. We are all Americans -- we are one people now, for better or worse.

Are we safer yet?

by catastrophile on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 02:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.