As someone who works on a paper, I have to hope this is an opinion piece or analysis because it's far too opinionated to be a good news story. But I find I agree with the sentiments. This is an odd thing to suddenly stump about a week before an election that's been focused on different subjects, and Bush is twisting the NJ's ruling around even though it seems to support the same position that Bush himself has supported in the past, civil unions.
That said, I'm not at all surprised. Marriage amendments on the ballot helped him out before, no reason to break away from a winning strategy.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
He was also stumping in south Georgia, where that strategy is almost guaranteed to work.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I hate the term "activist judge". For, or against the recognition of gay marriage, it should be left to the judges to interpret law.
On that note state and federal constitutions in my opinion are about giving rights to the citizens, not limiting them or describing what rights we don't have.
I will give the republicans credit for something though at least they are saying something. Every commercial the Democrats have run in my area have been about how the Republican opposition love Bush. The republicans on the other hand have actually been saying what they want to do if elected.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I IS SCURRRRRED!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Ah, around here, EVERYONE's been doing nothing but slinging mud (mostly), and the Republicans seem to be the worst. (My particular favorite is a mud-slinging ad in which one candidate accuses the other of running a negative campaign, and then goes on to smear all sorts of other things about that same candidate. Pot, meet kettle!)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My fondest hope is that enough respected politicians from both main parties break away in time to present a unified third party in 2008. Call 'em the Moderates.
I am heartily sick of both sides, and this kind of playing to the base just points out why.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: My fondest hope is that enough respected politicians from both main parties break away in time to present a unified third party in 2008. Call 'em the Moderates.
I am heartily sick of both sides, and this kind of playing to the base just points out why.
Unfortunately it seems that people don't vote for moderates.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Moderates get called spineless or flip floppy and both those terms scare people away from moderates. Its ridiculous.
I'm surprised the Republican party actually paid for a freeway side bill board telling us to "Vote your values, vote republican" I figured they wouldn't waste ANY money in Utah.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
IF GAYS MARRY, THEY WILL COMBINE THEIR POWERS LIKE CAPTAIN PLANET AND EAT YOUR BABIES!
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Great, now I'm picturing Carson Kressley with blue hair and skin-tight leotards, flying over the earth...
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: IF GAYS MARRY, THEY WILL COMBINE THEIR POWERS LIKE CAPTAIN PLANET AND EAT YOUR BABIES!
-pH
Thats a lie! We Jews have a monopoly on eating babies.
edited: per Lisa.
[ October 31, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
"We Jews," Stephan. Please, let's be grammatical.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
ScottR's Jewish?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is the secret of Negative Attack Adds.
Whatever the official candidate claims is the opponents great sin, it is actually their own.
If they claim the opponent is running untrue attack adds, that is because they are. If the opponent calls them on it, the opponent calls them on it, the odds are the public will only remember the first accusation and that there has been a lot of talk about lieing attack adds.
Listen to the ads and decide yourself. If a Dem claims Reps corruption in office, mark it down until the Dem's office is investigated. If w Rep says that the Dems are in the pocket of big business, see who is buying the Rep's ads.
While it is not 100% gauranteed truth, turning the ad around is more truthful than the original ad.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm surprised the Republican party actually paid for a freeway side bill board telling us to "Vote your values, vote republican" I figured they wouldn't waste ANY money in Utah.
Actually, Utah's second district has had a Democrat in the house for several years now. Even when they gerrymandered the district to make it include all of eastern and southern Utah, he was still able to fight off the Republicans. I'm sure they're drooling over that seat right now.
So if that sign was anywhere near Salt Lake, it doesn't surprise me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I saw a sign like that in Orem, UT, which is just about as conservative and Mormon a place as you can find on earth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My favourite ad these days is for a Republican running for a house seat that is currently held by a Republican. His slogan is "Vote for me because we need a change in Washington".
I think he is counting on the "haven't been paying attention" vote.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Chris,
Where is the opinion in this story? (As someone who works with Jennifer Loven, I want the opportunity to defend her )
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My favourite ad these days is for a Republican running for a house seat that is currently held by a Republican. His slogan is "Vote for me because we need a change in Washington".
I think he is counting on the "haven't been paying attention" vote.
Perhaps he is referring to his own party needing the change. He may be talking to those who are Republican and tired of the way Republicans in Washington have been handling things. Cause otherwise that does sound pretty silly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"...he is trying to fire up his party..." Conjecture.
"But he ignored that..." Or willfully avoided it, or forgot about it, or changed his mind, we don't know. I'd rather have seen this cast as "One alternative would be civil unions, something Bush himself said he supported in an interview on (whenever). No mention was made of this option during the speech." Better written than that, I'm not a journalist, but I prefer having the facts laid out in front of me so I can make my own assumption. I'd also be curious if Bush has commented on civil unions since that support.
"president's unpopularity" Unpopularity in the polls, which may not be the same thing. Or the "president's perceived unpopularity."
I'm probably nit-picking, I just tend to notice when I see what looks to me to be loaded terms and descriptions in a news article, even when agree with them.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
*nods* That makes sense.
On thing I didn't realize, though, before I started working at this kind of place, is that those phrases aren't always as unqualified as they come across in the story. The White House folks understand the continuity of policy in a way that most of us who just read about him don't understand - which is why it may be fair of her to say "But he ignored that." If he's changed his policy on civil unions, the reporter would know about it.
As far as "trying to fire up his party," that's a different sort of thing; the above argument is more of a stretch here. If anything, it belongs in a political analysis story. Though to be honest, I don't know what else he'd be doing having rallies for Republicans in competitive House districts a week before the midterm elections.
And the last one just depends on what one sees as the role of opinion polls. But I hear your argument.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But unless she's writing solely for an audience that shares her knowledge, she shouldn't shortcut. "But he ignored that" is conjecture. "But he seemingly ignored that" or "But that was never brought up" or "Notably absent was any mention of". State what happened, not what was in his head.
I wouldn't make that big a deal about it but I'm seeing this more and more lately.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: We Jews have a monopoly on eating babies.
We do? Since when?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: We Jews have a monopoly on eating babies.
We do? Since when?
Yeah, I wondered about that too. I, for one, was raised to share.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Cause otherwise that does sound pretty silly.