The extent of the damage done by NARAL's slanderous ad against John Roberts is much greater than I would have predicted at the outset. It has undermined one of the Democrat's most cherished conceits: that the other side is the dirty one.
This is evident from Dana Milbank's piece in the Washington Post. On the one hand, some Democratic power brokers clearly believe the line that the Democrats are the more honest party, and take the Machiavellian view that this is a character flaw.
"Republicans don't mind running an ad that's entirely false, but Democrats have never learned, and I'm not sure many of them want to learn, how to play that kind of politics," said Robert Shrum, an adviser to several Democratic presidential campaigns. NARAL had to pull the ad, he said, because "they weren't getting support from any substantial quarter."
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that "we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome." Lehane said the NARAL ad "was great, and exactly the type of offensive that breaks through in the modern age."
Shrum is disappointed that the Dems did not stand up behind the lies the add told. Lehane positively admires the bald faced lying that NARAL engaged in. Someone ought to point out to them that lies are rather less persuasive coming from someone who openly admires liars.
The problem is that Democrats really want to believe that they have always taken the "high road" and that the other side is the nasty one. Milbank points out the difficulty in this belief.
Few who remember the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or Newt Gingrich would assert that Democrats have trouble being mean. Nor are Democrats always inclined to eat their own: When Clinton was impeached, Democrats were almost unfailingly loyal, while Republicans have turned on party leaders such as Gingrich, Trent Lott and Bob Livingston.
It is hardly the case the Republican campaigns have been scrupulously honest. But Stephen Bryer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were never subject to the treatment that is now routine for Republican nominees to the Courts. Nor, as Milbank points out, have Republicans been as partisan when their own were found guilty of misbehavior. Oddly enough, Republicans would never have had the courage to defend a President guilty of Bill Clinton's transgressions.
One line of defense that has emerged among Democrats is this: "Well, what about those swiftboat ads, huh?" Milbank unwittingly points out the flaw in the argument.
Republicans, attacking the NARAL ad, trumpeted the finding of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org that the abortion group's ad was "false" and "misleading." But that same organization had labeled the Swift boat ads "dubious" and found "a serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers," which was at odds with military records.
You see that dubious is one thing; false is another. Dubious implies suspect interpretation of facts. False implies making up facts. If this is the best that Democrats can come up with, Republicans must be a lot more scrupulous than I supposed.
Recent Comments