Looks like NARAL's pulling their ad. Fair 'nuff. I think, after Leahy rebuked them, that we can safely judge that one a flop. But the discussion it created was interesting, and raises some issues we should be thinking about. The ad, for those who don't know, linked Roberts to violent antiabortion protesters because he defended them in a nonviolent context. It was hardball, to be sure, but nothing batters haven't seen before. The shock, awe, and surprise came mostly because the Roberts nomination washed such a warm glow of comity and calm over all involved, and so NARAL's frontal assault caught both the left and the right unawares.
For my part, I figured it par for the course. The one danger was that Roberts, who almost certainly will be confirmed, would take it personally. Much of what we've seen seems to show him a fair-minded jurist willing to seriously consider opposing arguments. But if NARAL really enrages him, it's possible he'd take it out on their cause during later trials, maybe even subconsciously. Since he's almost certain to pass the Senate anyway, this struck me as a future best avoided. But that's neither here nor there, and long-distance psychology probably isn't the sort of thing you want to base political strategy on.
Lindsay's response, though, bears a bit more scrutiny. This, she said, is a time for message discipline. Even if you think the ad went too far, don't say it. Just stroke your chin, mutter over the "interesting questions" it raises, and advance the meme. To do otherwise is "grandstanding".
