Conservative Edge gets one wrong-ish

Okay, so the NARAL ad on John Roberts is bologna, so says Factcheck.org. That much is settled.

The question now is, Is CNN "liberal" for having run the ad? And are they still running it following Factcheck.org's debunking?

Conservative Edge links to a Drudge Report story saying that CNN was paid $125,000 to run the NARAL ad, thus concluding that CNN is "liberal." Neither Drudge nor CE mention that CNN was also running an ad in support of Roberts from Progress for America, a conservative group. Does this make CNN conservative? No. Fair and balanced? I report, you decide.

But my question is: when did the CE post this message, because there is conflicting information on their site. The banner above the post said it was posted this morning, Friday, August 12. But the blogging software has tagged the post as 8/10, or Wednesday. This is important because NARAL pulled the ad on Thursday, after Arlen Specter called the ad "blantantly untrue and unfair."

If CE posted this on Friday, then half its post is incorrect, starting here:

CNN is continuing to run the ad. This particular ad is such a bold face absurd concoction, that I find it hard to believe that CNN was evert actually checking it for accuracy, but rather checking to make sure it would be detrimental enough to Bush's choice. Once they were satisfied that it would cause enough trouble, I am sure the agreement was an easy one for them to make

CNN is no longer running the ad. CNN reports that NARAL pulled the ad. It's a shame that CNN didn't pull the ad themselves.

Of course, just as NARAL, a fringe left group, is opposing Roberts, so is a fringe right group, Public Advocate for the United States because Roberts took 10 hours out of his life to help a gay rights group prepare for a Supreme Court arguement.

I think because Roberts is getting attacked by loons on both sides means Bush actually did what many thought was impossible: he made a good choice for his SCOTUS nominee.