Any reference to CFAF's commorcials this cycle should be certain to note that the main issue was the underlying untruths behind them. CFAF is effectively going to court to defend the right of large corporations to amke stuff up about candidates and air it until it becomes perceived as being true.

Let's just call it The Gabelman Defense.
grumps | 12.20.08 - 5:58 am | #

Grumps, as has been repeatedly shown, the ad was accurate. Radcliffe may have not liked the ad but it doesn't make it any less true.

But that's not for a judge to decide. If Radcliffe truly feels he was libeled, he should sue.
james Wigderson | Homepage | 12.20.08 - 9:14 am | #

Ah, partisanship. One says the ad was untrue, the other says it was accurate. Who to believe?
Tim | Homepage | 12.20.08 - 4:43 pm | #