Well, looks like Burr is going to pull this out

[publicunofficial]

TN Volunteer is the one you're thinking of. (New Hampshire posts).

Wulfric and I don't angree on THAT much. Also, he's convinced that NH is a pure Tossup state, so I don't get your point?

Anyway, this is a bad thread, lol.

Gentlemen, I assure you, I dislike both of you equally, no need to fight.

[swf541]

Unfortunately, this'll probably work.

Same way "muh Ebola! ISIS!" took out Hagan.

Not likely in a presidential year where Clinton is virtually guaranteed North Carolina's vote. The way I see it, this will either wash or backfire tremendously.

[NerdyBohemian]

I don't understand why Republicans hate the 6th Amendment so much.

[Mr. Smith]

Unfortunately, this'll probably work.

Same way "muh Ebola! ISIS!" took out Hagan.

Not likely in a presidential year where Clinton is virtually guaranteed North Carolina's vote. The way I see it, this will either wash or backfire tremendously.

This assumes that there won't be a decent number of GOP voters who voted GOP on everything but trump.

[Torie]

Ross was doing her job as a lawyer defending someone. The ad is disgusting.

[Maxwell]

any ad that attacks a lawyer for doing what a lawyer should do for their clients underestimates the intelligence of human beings. Not surprised that Wulfric falls for it.

Disgraceful. Burr should be ashamed.

I mean if this is all they have on wonderful beautiful Deborah Ross than she has this thing in the bag.

[Fitzgerald]

any ad that attacks a lawyer for doing what a lawyer should do for their clients underestimates the intelligence of human beings. Not surprised that Wulfric falls for it.

Disgraceful. Burr should be ashamed.

I mean if this is all they have on wonderful beautiful Deborah Ross than she has this thing in the bag.

Let's not forget that Burr also made the potentially fatal Republican mistake of dipping into the hostile territories of race and rape. Nothing on Akin levels, but he's treading on thin ice.

[DavidB.]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

Mainly because it's incredibly disingenuous.

[Green Line]

Wow, very very bad for her.

[Nyvin]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

Because it attempts to tie her to a rapist when she was a public lawyer.   She wasn't even Green's attorney.  

Does anyone really think this ad will make it seem like Ross likes these kind of people or something?    Do they realize that having a lawyer is a constitutional right?

[Mr. Smith]

If this ad didn't do it, the Fire-bombing of an NC GOP office will.

[Gass3268]

Wow, very very bad for her.

People who attack public lawyers are scum.

[Torie]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

As noted above, it is the duty of public defenders to represent "scum."  Once in awhile, the "scum" actually should not be found guilty, with the difference being competent counsel. It levels the playing field some, when in court with your freedom at stake, between rich criminal defendants, and poor ones. Now, if the crimbo scum were a rich, and a criminal defense attorney into the big bucks, chose to represent the rich scum for pecuniary greed, believing him in his amoral heart to be as guilty as "sin" in the eye of any reasonable higher moral authority, but screw that, that would be another matter. I would never do that personally.

[DavidB.]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

As noted above, it is the duty of public defenders to represent "scum."  Once in awhile, the "scum" actually should not be found guilty, with the difference being competent counsel. It levels the playing field some, when in court with your freedom at stake, between rich criminal defendants, and poor ones. Now, if the crimbo scum were a rich, and a criminal defense attorney into the big bucks, chose to represent the rich scum for pecuniary greed, believing him in his amoral heart to be as guilty as "sin" in the eye of any reasonable higher moral authority, but screw that, that would be another matter. I would never do that personally.

This is what I meant by "I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing her job", yes. Still does not fall in the category "disgusting" for me, but maybe that's just a personal judgment call.

I personally happen to think it does say something about someone if they are able to defend rapists or murderers. The ad "worked" on me (though I obviously don't know the details of this case and Ross' involvement in it), but I was wondering if I had missed some subtext or dog whistling I didn't see, so that's why I asked.

[Nyvin]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

As noted above, it is the duty of public defenders to represent "scum."  Once in awhile, the "scum" actually should not be found guilty, with the difference being competent counsel. It levels the playing field some, when in court with your freedom at stake, between rich criminal defendants, and poor ones. Now, if the crimbo scum were a rich, and a criminal defense attorney into the big bucks, chose to represent the rich scum for pecuniary greed, believing him in his amoral heart to be as guilty as "sin" in the eye of any reasonable higher moral authority, but screw that, that would be another matter. I would never do that personally.

This is what I meant by "I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing her job", yes. Still does not fall in the category "disgusting" for me, but maybe that's just a personal judgment call.

I personally happen to think it does say something about someone if they are able to defend rapists or murderers. The ad "worked" on me (though I obviously don't know the details of this case and Ross' involvement in it), but I was wondering if I was missing some subtext or dog whistling I didn't see, so that's why I asked.

So apparently you think no public defendant should ever hold a political office since at some point or another nearly all of them will have to defend someone who's actually guilty, and a good majority of them will end up defending supposed "rapist and murderers"?

[DavidB.]

So apparently you think no public defendant should ever hold a political office since at some point or another nearly all of them will have to defend someone who's actually guilty, and a good majority of them will end up defending supposed "rapist and murderers"?

Not saying that. But I'm saying it says something about someone's personality to be able to do that, and I'm saying I'm conscious of the fact that political attack ads featuring criminals that a politician once defended work on me: I will see that politician as a less good person. It does not necessarily mean such politicians are less suited to hold public office, but it does influence my opinion of their morals.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

As noted above, it is the duty of public defenders to represent "scum."  Once in awhile, the "scum" actually should not be found guilty, with the difference being competent counsel. It levels the playing field some, when in court with your freedom at stake, between rich criminal defendants, and poor ones. Now, if the crimbo scum were a rich, and a criminal defense attorney into the big bucks, chose to represent the rich scum for pecuniary greed, believing him in his amoral heart to be as guilty as "sin" in the eye of any reasonable higher moral authority, but screw that, that would be another matter. I would never do that personally.

This is what I meant by "I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing her job", yes. Still does not fall in the category "disgusting" for me, but maybe that's just a personal judgment call.

I personally happen to think it does say something about someone if they are able to defend rapists or murderers. The ad "worked" on me (though I obviously don't know the details of this case and Ross' involvement in it), but I was wondering if I was missing some subtext or dog whistling I didn't see, so that's why I asked.

So apparently you think no public defendant should ever hold a political office since at some point or another nearly all of them will have to defend someone who's actually guilty, and a good majority of them will end up defending supposed "rapist and murderers"?

Personally I would never be a public defender for this reason - I would not personally be able to engage in the extremely sinful act of trying to persuade a judge that someone is not guilty of murder or rape when they are in fact guilty.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

As noted above, it is the duty of public defenders to represent "scum."  Once in awhile, the "scum" actually should not be found guilty, with the difference being competent counsel. It levels the playing field some, when in court with your freedom at stake, between rich criminal defendants, and poor ones. Now, if the crimbo scum were a rich, and a criminal defense attorney into the big bucks, chose to represent the rich scum for pecuniary greed, believing him in his amoral heart to be as guilty as "sin" in the eye of any reasonable higher moral authority, but screw that, that would be another matter. I would never do that personally.

This is what I meant by "I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing her job", yes. Still does not fall in the category "disgusting" for me, but maybe that's just a personal judgment call.

I personally happen to think it does say something about someone if they are able to defend rapists or murderers. The ad "worked" on me (though I obviously don't know the details of this case and Ross' involvement in it), but I was wondering if I was missing some subtext or dog whistling I didn't see, so that's why I asked.

So apparently you think no public defendant should ever hold a political office since at some point or another nearly all of them will have to defend someone who's actually guilty, and a good majority of them will end up defending supposed "rapist and murderers"?

Personally I would never be a public defender for this reason - I would not personally be able to engage in the extremely sinful act of trying to persuade a judge that someone is not guilty of murder or rape when they are in fact guilty.

Is it less sinful to try to persuade a judge that someone is guilty of murder or rape when they are in fact innocent? Because prosecutors do that all the time and no one seems to have a problem with that.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I mean, I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing their job, but why do people think this is so "disgusting"? Am I missing something?

As noted above, it is the duty of public defenders to represent "scum."  Once in awhile, the "scum" actually should not be found guilty, with the difference being competent counsel. It levels the playing field some, when in court with your freedom at stake, between rich criminal defendants, and poor ones. Now, if the crimbo scum were a rich, and a criminal defense attorney into the big bucks, chose to represent the rich scum for pecuniary greed, believing him in his amoral heart to be as guilty as "sin" in the eye of any reasonable higher moral authority, but screw that, that would be another matter. I would never do that personally.

This is what I meant by "I see why people disagree with the choice of attacking a lawyer on doing her job", yes. Still does not fall in the category "disgusting" for me, but maybe that's just a personal judgment call.

I personally happen to think it does say something about someone if they are able to defend rapists or murderers. The ad "worked" on me (though I obviously don't know the details of this case and Ross' involvement in it), but I was wondering if I was missing some subtext or dog whistling I didn't see, so that's why I asked.

So apparently you think no public defendant should ever hold a political office since at some point or another nearly all of them will have to defend someone who's actually guilty, and a good majority of them will end up defending supposed "rapist and murderers"?

Personally I would never be a public defender for this reason - I would not personally be able to engage in the extremely sinful act of trying to persuade a judge that someone is not guilty of murder or rape when they are in fact guilty.

Is it less sinful to try to persuade a judge that someone is guilty of murder or rape when they are in fact innocent? Because prosecutors do that all the time and no one seems to have a problem with that.

I mean maybe a little, but it's still quite the deception. Along this line, I don't personally think plea deals are a good thing since people who are in fact innocent may be tempted into taking a plea deal due to fear of a "worst case scenario" happening in court.

[BuckeyeNut]

Ah yes, the sinful act of seeing the sixth amendment properly enforced. Disgusting, I say!

[publicunofficial]

So apparently you think no public defendant should ever hold a political office since at some point or another nearly all of them will have to defend someone who's actually guilty, and a good majority of them will end up defending supposed "rapist and murderers"?

Not saying that. But I'm saying it says something about someone's personality to be able to do that, and I'm saying I'm conscious of the fact that political attack ads featuring criminals that a politician once defended work on me: I will see that politician as a less good person. It does not necessarily mean such politicians are less suited to hold public office, but it does influence my opinion of their morals.

It does say something about people who are able to do that: That they have a massive sense of compassion and public duty, even to the lowest of the low, and care more about that than how it makes them look for future job opportunities. To me, that's the #1 thing I look for in a politician. The fact that you can look at that compassion and view it as a negative is such incredible stupidity and ignorance that it influences my opinion of YOUR morals.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Not as transparently desperate as Dole's infamous ad, but it's getting there.

Congratulations Senator Ross!

Ross is gonna lose.

[DavidB.]

Not saying that. But I'm saying it says something about someone's personality to be able to do that, and I'm saying I'm conscious of the fact that political attack ads featuring criminals that a politician once defended work on me: I will see that politician as a less good person. It does not necessarily mean such politicians are less suited to hold public office, but it does influence my opinion of their morals.

It does say something about people who are able to do that: That they have a massive sense of compassion and public duty, even to the lowest of the low, and care more about that than how it makes them look for future job opportunities. To me, that's the #1 thing I look for in a politician. The fact that you can look at that compassion and view it as a negative is such incredible stupidity and ignorance that it influences my opinion of YOUR morals.

It has nothing to do with "how it makes them look for future job opportunities." I have a lot of compassion for the victims of terrible crimes, not for the perpetrators of those crimes. I don't think I will lose any sleep over you criticizing the fact that I don't think it is compassionate or morally alright for lawyers to find ways to make the scum of the earth not pay for their crimes.

[pbrower2a]

As a defense attorney one has the obligation to get the most favorable treatment of one's client short of forging evidence or pushing perjury.