Date: December 21st, 2011
Author: Jason Linkins
Topic: Iowa caucuses
Source: Huffington Post "Iowa Not A Bad Place To Stage Season's First Primary Contest, According To Math"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/iowa-2012-caucus-2011_n_1163702.html
So, if you look at the math, apparently, Iowa is economically most representative of all of the 50 states. This is measured by how close to the 0 mean each state falls. Iowa deviates only .02, while New Hampshire, the first state to hold a primary deviates a substantial .26 units from the mean. As the author of the study writes, "Its cross-section of economic forces, especially within the controlled context of the socio-political factors, best mirrors the general strengths and weaknesses at work in an American state economy." Clearly then, Iowa is the undisputed best place to hold the first caucus, right? Ehh not so fast. The study was done by the University of Iowa. Perhaps there was some bias then? So, the debate continues. Is Iowa really the most representative of all the 50 states? I doubt it. Let's think about this. If the the statistic I heard is true, Fundamentalist Christians make up a whopping 60% of Iowa's population. I'm pretty sure the U.S. as a whole is not 60% Fundamentalist. Furthermore, the U.S. as a whole is way more ethnically and politically diverse than Iowa. So, I propose the first primary is held in California-large, representative, diverse population. Why not?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
And Pinocchio's Nose Just Keeps Getting Longer and Longer...
Date: December 21st, 2011
Author: Glenn Kessler
Topic: The facetiousness of super PAC ads
Source: Washington Post "Romney vs. Gingrich: A super PAC's over-the-top ad" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-versus-gingrich-a-super-pacs-over-the-top-ad/2011/12/20/gIQAeJQn7O_blog.html
For anyone who actually believes the bullshit content of political ads, perhaps this article will be a reality check for you. In recent anti-Newt Gingrich ad put out by Romney's super PAC "Restore Our Future." Perhaps the only absolutely true statement in the ad is that Gingrich has "baggage." However, the ad's description of this "baggage" goes far beyond the truth. Lying and exaggeration abound.
The article quotes the video, saying, "Nancy 'Pelosi and Gingrich co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a United Nations program supporting China’s brutal ‘one child’ policy.'” Turns out that a) this bill was proposed in 1989, b) was never even voted on, was part of a much larger bill, and c) was co-sponsored by 144 people, not just Pelosi and Gingrich! Out of context this portion of a bill is completely misrepresented and, in reality, indicates absolutely nothing about Gingrich's legislative past. Not only is the information in the ad incorrect, but the sources from which it draws information are not valid. For example, the ad states, "“Freddie Mac, which helped cause the economic collapse, paid Newt Gingrich $30,000 an hour for a total of at least $1.6 million.” That 30,000 dollar figure was taken from a tongue-in-cheek blog entry about Gingrich which openly acknowledged that it was exaggerating and guessing at Gingrich's actual financial benefit from the Freddie.
If the purpose of political ads is to bash the other candidate, the ads should at least be truthful! Gingrich has enough real baggage to fill up an entire ad, so why make up lies? Honestly, I think ads should only cite truthful praise about the candidates they support. These candidate bashing ads only make for a dog eat dog political atmosphere. It's bad enough that bipartisanship has turn into letsbestubbornandcometoacompletestandstillpartisanship. What are stubborn and hurtful ads going to do to foster any sort of collaborative spirit either within or between parties? Political ads are useless.
Author: Glenn Kessler
Topic: The facetiousness of super PAC ads
Source: Washington Post "Romney vs. Gingrich: A super PAC's over-the-top ad" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-versus-gingrich-a-super-pacs-over-the-top-ad/2011/12/20/gIQAeJQn7O_blog.html
For anyone who actually believes the bullshit content of political ads, perhaps this article will be a reality check for you. In recent anti-Newt Gingrich ad put out by Romney's super PAC "Restore Our Future." Perhaps the only absolutely true statement in the ad is that Gingrich has "baggage." However, the ad's description of this "baggage" goes far beyond the truth. Lying and exaggeration abound.
The article quotes the video, saying, "Nancy 'Pelosi and Gingrich co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a United Nations program supporting China’s brutal ‘one child’ policy.'” Turns out that a) this bill was proposed in 1989, b) was never even voted on, was part of a much larger bill, and c) was co-sponsored by 144 people, not just Pelosi and Gingrich! Out of context this portion of a bill is completely misrepresented and, in reality, indicates absolutely nothing about Gingrich's legislative past. Not only is the information in the ad incorrect, but the sources from which it draws information are not valid. For example, the ad states, "“Freddie Mac, which helped cause the economic collapse, paid Newt Gingrich $30,000 an hour for a total of at least $1.6 million.” That 30,000 dollar figure was taken from a tongue-in-cheek blog entry about Gingrich which openly acknowledged that it was exaggerating and guessing at Gingrich's actual financial benefit from the Freddie.
If the purpose of political ads is to bash the other candidate, the ads should at least be truthful! Gingrich has enough real baggage to fill up an entire ad, so why make up lies? Honestly, I think ads should only cite truthful praise about the candidates they support. These candidate bashing ads only make for a dog eat dog political atmosphere. It's bad enough that bipartisanship has turn into letsbestubbornandcometoacompletestandstillpartisanship. What are stubborn and hurtful ads going to do to foster any sort of collaborative spirit either within or between parties? Political ads are useless.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Why No Huntsman Surge?
Program: CNN State of the Union
Topic: Interview with John Huntsman
Date: 12/18/11
Source: http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/18/wheres-the-huntsman-surge/
Jon Huntsman is now in third place among the Republican primary candidates for the New Hampshire primaries. People, in Huntsman's opinion, finally seem to be realizing that he didn't "send a mixed message" when he crossed partisan lines to become the ambassador of china. He likes to say that he's the "true conservative" and that he's one of the few candidates who hasn't rapidly advanced in the poles only to be relegated to 2nd, 3rd, and even non-existent (Cain) spots in the poles. Instead, Huntsman has been gradually making his way up Republican ladder. Will he be able to prove that he's the "electable" candidate who actually has a viable chance at defeating Obama.
Huntsman's two-pronged platform differs a bit from that of his Republican counterparts. First, he says he's going to "attack the economic deficit" because it's becoming a problem of national security. Second, he intends to "attack the trust deficit." By "trust deficit" he means that intends to give people reason to once again have trust in the tax code, trust in wars abroad, trust in Wall Street, and, most importantly, trust in Congress. With Congress, he wants to dock their pay until they make a balanced budget, and he wants to, once and for all, shut the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.
Quite honestly, until watching this video, I knew less about Huntsman than I did about any of the other candidates. However, after watching the video, I believe he actually would be the most viable candidate to defeat Obama. He's eloquent, knowledgeable, has foreign affairs experience, and has clear goals. He says, of crossing party, "I believe in putting my country first."Maybe he'd actually be willing to compromise with the opposite party's Congress-members and get something done. I do not see that happening with any of the other candidates (with the possible exception of good Ol' Mitt). I have to read more about Huntsman, but, based upon my current knowledge, the Republicans should give Huntsman a second chance (or, perhaps, a first chance). From a liberal's perspective, I think it is in the G.O.P's best interest to nominate Huntsman as their 2012 presidential candidate because he is the only one (besides Ron Paul), who does not sound or act absolutely ridiculous, or have a questionable past. Just saying...
Topic: Interview with John Huntsman
Date: 12/18/11
Source: http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/18/wheres-the-huntsman-surge/
Jon Huntsman is now in third place among the Republican primary candidates for the New Hampshire primaries. People, in Huntsman's opinion, finally seem to be realizing that he didn't "send a mixed message" when he crossed partisan lines to become the ambassador of china. He likes to say that he's the "true conservative" and that he's one of the few candidates who hasn't rapidly advanced in the poles only to be relegated to 2nd, 3rd, and even non-existent (Cain) spots in the poles. Instead, Huntsman has been gradually making his way up Republican ladder. Will he be able to prove that he's the "electable" candidate who actually has a viable chance at defeating Obama.
Huntsman's two-pronged platform differs a bit from that of his Republican counterparts. First, he says he's going to "attack the economic deficit" because it's becoming a problem of national security. Second, he intends to "attack the trust deficit." By "trust deficit" he means that intends to give people reason to once again have trust in the tax code, trust in wars abroad, trust in Wall Street, and, most importantly, trust in Congress. With Congress, he wants to dock their pay until they make a balanced budget, and he wants to, once and for all, shut the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.
Quite honestly, until watching this video, I knew less about Huntsman than I did about any of the other candidates. However, after watching the video, I believe he actually would be the most viable candidate to defeat Obama. He's eloquent, knowledgeable, has foreign affairs experience, and has clear goals. He says, of crossing party, "I believe in putting my country first."Maybe he'd actually be willing to compromise with the opposite party's Congress-members and get something done. I do not see that happening with any of the other candidates (with the possible exception of good Ol' Mitt). I have to read more about Huntsman, but, based upon my current knowledge, the Republicans should give Huntsman a second chance (or, perhaps, a first chance). From a liberal's perspective, I think it is in the G.O.P's best interest to nominate Huntsman as their 2012 presidential candidate because he is the only one (besides Ron Paul), who does not sound or act absolutely ridiculous, or have a questionable past. Just saying...
Friday, December 16, 2011
BIAS?
Date: December 16th, 2011
Author: Chris Stirewalt
Topic: The latest G.O.P debate
Source: Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/newt-leads-gop-out-debate-wilderness/ "Newt Leads GOP Out of Debate Wilderness"
An article that appeared on Fox News' website yesterday is absolutely replete with bias! The author even states so himself. He writes, "While Power Play acknowledges its extreme bias on this point..." The article itself was about how the Republicans have FINALLY participated in a civilized and respectable debate, with Newt Gingrich setting this respectable tone. The article clearly favors Gingrich, saying, "The Gingrich method is to praise one’s fellow Republicans, use humor, speak substantively and save the really rough stuff for Barack Obama" and then asserting that it was because everyone followed Gingrich's lead that the debate went so comparatively smoothly.
I think it's interesting that while the article has a clear Republican bias, it still acknowledges that GOP does not exactly have the ideal pool candidates this year. Stirewalt writes, "After more than seven months of acidic, divisive confrontations with answers that were long on bluster and sloganeering and short on substance..." Until now, I thought it was only us liberals who thought these debates and these candidates were simply too ridiculous to demand any form of respect whatsoever. Apparently not...good to know.
The article goes on to examine, in detail, a quote from each of GOP candidates from Thursday's debate. Somehow Stirewalt even manages to take Michelle Bachmann seriously, saying that she "revived herself from previously flat debate performances." The article, however, seems to predict that Gingrich will still win the Iowa Caucuses despite the oh-so-amazing debate performances of all the other respectable, extemporaneous, and vivacious candidates. Can't wait to see who wins the caucuses...
Author: Chris Stirewalt
Topic: The latest G.O.P debate
Source: Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/newt-leads-gop-out-debate-wilderness/ "Newt Leads GOP Out of Debate Wilderness"
An article that appeared on Fox News' website yesterday is absolutely replete with bias! The author even states so himself. He writes, "While Power Play acknowledges its extreme bias on this point..." The article itself was about how the Republicans have FINALLY participated in a civilized and respectable debate, with Newt Gingrich setting this respectable tone. The article clearly favors Gingrich, saying, "The Gingrich method is to praise one’s fellow Republicans, use humor, speak substantively and save the really rough stuff for Barack Obama" and then asserting that it was because everyone followed Gingrich's lead that the debate went so comparatively smoothly.
I think it's interesting that while the article has a clear Republican bias, it still acknowledges that GOP does not exactly have the ideal pool candidates this year. Stirewalt writes, "After more than seven months of acidic, divisive confrontations with answers that were long on bluster and sloganeering and short on substance..." Until now, I thought it was only us liberals who thought these debates and these candidates were simply too ridiculous to demand any form of respect whatsoever. Apparently not...good to know.
The article goes on to examine, in detail, a quote from each of GOP candidates from Thursday's debate. Somehow Stirewalt even manages to take Michelle Bachmann seriously, saying that she "revived herself from previously flat debate performances." The article, however, seems to predict that Gingrich will still win the Iowa Caucuses despite the oh-so-amazing debate performances of all the other respectable, extemporaneous, and vivacious candidates. Can't wait to see who wins the caucuses...
Gingrich Not the Leader of the Pack?
Date: December 16th, 2011
Author: Molly Ball
Topic: The latest G.O.P debate
Source: The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/gop-debate-wrap-the-iowa-sprint-begins/250094/ "GOP Debate Wrap: The Iowa Sprint Begins"
Apparently the Gingrich method that I discussed in my last post (BIAS?) did not make Gingrich look like a civilized, sophisticated, and respectable candidate...at least not according to Molly Ball. She writes that "Gingrich gets bloodied." And, what's most surprising is that Gingrich's comparatively poor performance in Thursday's debate seems to be largely the result of Michelle Bachmann's doings. Bachmann, according to the article effectively criticized Gingrich for not taking Bachmann as a serious presidential candidate, and insinuated that perhaps it was because she is a woman. Honestly, we need respectable and reasonable women running for government positions, not the circus that is Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. How can we expect to ever get a woman elected president if this is becoming the norm for female presidential candidates? Or, perhaps, the Republicans don't want a woman to win. They are, after all, called the Grand Old Party, and maybe their values and traditions remain old and antiquated, as well. Okay, sorry for the tangent. Bachmann also criticized Gingrich for supporting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and even proved she was somewhat knowledgeable on the topic (what a surprise!). Clearly, these two articles (Newt Leads GOP Out of Debate Wilderness and GOP Debate Wrap: The Iowa Sprint Begins) wholly contradict each other. Perhaps they reflect the sentiments of most Republican voters. They are confused, frustrated with the lack of clear respectable leader (yes, I know I've used this word about 5 times), and obviously can't even trust the media, as interpretations of the GOP primary are vast, bias, and often unreliable. The article discusses the other candidates' performances as well, but I really just wanted to focus on a comparison between the two articles stated above.
Author: Molly Ball
Topic: The latest G.O.P debate
Source: The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/gop-debate-wrap-the-iowa-sprint-begins/250094/ "GOP Debate Wrap: The Iowa Sprint Begins"
Apparently the Gingrich method that I discussed in my last post (BIAS?) did not make Gingrich look like a civilized, sophisticated, and respectable candidate...at least not according to Molly Ball. She writes that "Gingrich gets bloodied." And, what's most surprising is that Gingrich's comparatively poor performance in Thursday's debate seems to be largely the result of Michelle Bachmann's doings. Bachmann, according to the article effectively criticized Gingrich for not taking Bachmann as a serious presidential candidate, and insinuated that perhaps it was because she is a woman. Honestly, we need respectable and reasonable women running for government positions, not the circus that is Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. How can we expect to ever get a woman elected president if this is becoming the norm for female presidential candidates? Or, perhaps, the Republicans don't want a woman to win. They are, after all, called the Grand Old Party, and maybe their values and traditions remain old and antiquated, as well. Okay, sorry for the tangent. Bachmann also criticized Gingrich for supporting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and even proved she was somewhat knowledgeable on the topic (what a surprise!). Clearly, these two articles (Newt Leads GOP Out of Debate Wilderness and GOP Debate Wrap: The Iowa Sprint Begins) wholly contradict each other. Perhaps they reflect the sentiments of most Republican voters. They are confused, frustrated with the lack of clear respectable leader (yes, I know I've used this word about 5 times), and obviously can't even trust the media, as interpretations of the GOP primary are vast, bias, and often unreliable. The article discusses the other candidates' performances as well, but I really just wanted to focus on a comparison between the two articles stated above.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
A Reformed Republican--Amazing!
Date: November 20th, 2011
Author: David Frum
Page: 1
Topic: The view of a reformed Republican on the GOP race
Source: New York Magazine "When Did the GOP Lose Touch with Reality?" http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
Dear Mr. Quinn: I did not realize these posts were supposed to be about very recent articles until after I published this one. Forgive me for my error?
David Frum has written for the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and Forbes Magazine and he was one of George Bush's speechwriters. David Frum voted for John McCain in 2008. David Frum is Republican. Err well, he was a Republican until this year when the GOP primary circus hit the nation. Frum simply thinks that the Republicans have lost touch with reality. The multiple Republican ideologies that existed just 10 years ago seem to have shifted to just one: tax cuts for the wealthiest in our nation. And this Frum cannot handle. This is not the Republican party Frum joined 30 some years ago. He cites multiple examples as proof. He writes, "Today, the Fed’s pushing down interest rates in hopes of igniting economic growth is close to treason, according to Governor Rick Perry, coyly seconded by TheWall Street Journal. In 2000, the same policy qualified Alan Greenspan as the “greatest central banker in the history of the world,” according to Perry’s mentor, Senator Phil Gramm."
While this article is not exclusively about the primary, the message is clear: we need a strong leader to lead our country for the next four years, and neither the primary candidates nor Obama seem to have what it takes. While I am generally liberal in my views, I wholeheartedly agree with Frum. We need another FDR, another Martin Luther King Jr. We need strong, adamant leadership-something that Obama is not providing. Not only this, but we need to be able to compromise! Somehow, I don't see Michelle Bachmann and Hillary Clinton seeing eye to eye on anything. Honestly, this country is going to fall apart if someone doesn't step up quickly, and I can't see any Republican primary candidate worthy of the task. As Frum concludes, "For the past half-dozen years, I have been arguing that we conservatives need to follow a different course. And it is this argument that has led so many of my friends to demand, sometimes bemusedly, sometimes angrily, 'What the hell happened to you?' I could fire the same question back: “Never mind me—what happened to you?” I'd be interested to know if Frum votes in the 2012 presidential elections.
Author: David Frum
Page: 1
Topic: The view of a reformed Republican on the GOP race
Source: New York Magazine "When Did the GOP Lose Touch with Reality?" http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
Dear Mr. Quinn: I did not realize these posts were supposed to be about very recent articles until after I published this one. Forgive me for my error?
David Frum has written for the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and Forbes Magazine and he was one of George Bush's speechwriters. David Frum voted for John McCain in 2008. David Frum is Republican. Err well, he was a Republican until this year when the GOP primary circus hit the nation. Frum simply thinks that the Republicans have lost touch with reality. The multiple Republican ideologies that existed just 10 years ago seem to have shifted to just one: tax cuts for the wealthiest in our nation. And this Frum cannot handle. This is not the Republican party Frum joined 30 some years ago. He cites multiple examples as proof. He writes, "Today, the Fed’s pushing down interest rates in hopes of igniting economic growth is close to treason, according to Governor Rick Perry, coyly seconded by TheWall Street Journal. In 2000, the same policy qualified Alan Greenspan as the “greatest central banker in the history of the world,” according to Perry’s mentor, Senator Phil Gramm."
While this article is not exclusively about the primary, the message is clear: we need a strong leader to lead our country for the next four years, and neither the primary candidates nor Obama seem to have what it takes. While I am generally liberal in my views, I wholeheartedly agree with Frum. We need another FDR, another Martin Luther King Jr. We need strong, adamant leadership-something that Obama is not providing. Not only this, but we need to be able to compromise! Somehow, I don't see Michelle Bachmann and Hillary Clinton seeing eye to eye on anything. Honestly, this country is going to fall apart if someone doesn't step up quickly, and I can't see any Republican primary candidate worthy of the task. As Frum concludes, "For the past half-dozen years, I have been arguing that we conservatives need to follow a different course. And it is this argument that has led so many of my friends to demand, sometimes bemusedly, sometimes angrily, 'What the hell happened to you?' I could fire the same question back: “Never mind me—what happened to you?” I'd be interested to know if Frum votes in the 2012 presidential elections.
Perry's Latest Primary Campaign Ploy
Date: December 8, 2011
Author: Richard A. Oppel Jr.
Page Number: N/A
Topic: Rick Perry and his views on gay legislation
Source: The New York Times "Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Is Divisive Even to Staff"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/politics/perrys-anti-gay-rights-focus-is-divisive-even-to-staff.html?_r=1&ref=samesexmarriage
I know that Rick Perry's recent string of attacks on policies involving homosexuality are under fire from a number of civil rights, gay rights, and religious groups. I did not know, however, that even some of Perry's own campaign staff think his recent attacks-his "Strong" ad, for example-have gone too far. His own campaign advisor admits it! His ad, which begins, "...you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school," comes, as I learned, a day after President Obama instituted a new initiative to protect gay rights and promote the decriminalization of homosexual behavior world wide.
Perry's attack on homosexuality is his latest attempt to increase his voting base, especially among fundamentalist Christians. However, like most of the country, even fundamentalist Christians are currently more concerned about the faltering economy than about mere social issues. Furthermore, A New York Times/CBS News Poll recently established that 22% of respondents believe that same sex couples should have the right to marry, 36% believe they should be allowed to have civil unions, and only 38% believe they should have no legal rights whatsoever. As for Obama's repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," roughly 75% of Iraq and Afghanistan military veterans said they felt "comfortable around gay service members." Even so, analysts assert that Perry's single issue approach may actually win him some votes. Go figure.
I truly believe the best way to use the aforementioned information is just to "spread the word," even if only to my own socially liberal friends. The "Strong" video has already gone viral on Facebook and Youtube, and, if the comments on Youtube are correct, Perry even disabled the like/dislike option under the video, because the video was receiving so many "dislikes." Clearly the video is receiving much more negative attention from liberals than it is from conservatives. Perhaps, mass-media sharing of the video will produce the opposite of its intended effect: if Perry somehow makes it to the general election, it will induce a larger number of liberal voters to get out and vote. I could also possibly use the statistics to convince people of the growing acceptance for homosexuality (and the legislation involving it) in the U.S. However, for now, I see no substantial impact that his attacks and/or these statistics can have on public policy. As aforementioned, Obama has already taken initiative to promote gay rights domestically as well as internationally, and, as he is not willing to legalize gay marriage, I don't foresee any additional attempts at policy changes (especially with the Republican majority in the House).
The article itself had a slight, but not blatant, liberal bias. The headline, "Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Is Divisive Even to Staff," seems to imply with the word "even" that the author thinks it's a good thing that the focus is so controversial. Additionally, in using the world only in, "Only 38 percent said they supported no legal recognition for same-sex couples," the author seems to view this number as relatively small and therefore a welcome opposition to Perry's viewpoints. Or maybe I'm just really liberal and I'm perceiving the article's bias as I want to perceive it...
Author: Richard A. Oppel Jr.
Page Number: N/A
Topic: Rick Perry and his views on gay legislation
Source: The New York Times "Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Is Divisive Even to Staff"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/politics/perrys-anti-gay-rights-focus-is-divisive-even-to-staff.html?_r=1&ref=samesexmarriage
I know that Rick Perry's recent string of attacks on policies involving homosexuality are under fire from a number of civil rights, gay rights, and religious groups. I did not know, however, that even some of Perry's own campaign staff think his recent attacks-his "Strong" ad, for example-have gone too far. His own campaign advisor admits it! His ad, which begins, "...you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school," comes, as I learned, a day after President Obama instituted a new initiative to protect gay rights and promote the decriminalization of homosexual behavior world wide.
Perry's attack on homosexuality is his latest attempt to increase his voting base, especially among fundamentalist Christians. However, like most of the country, even fundamentalist Christians are currently more concerned about the faltering economy than about mere social issues. Furthermore, A New York Times/CBS News Poll recently established that 22% of respondents believe that same sex couples should have the right to marry, 36% believe they should be allowed to have civil unions, and only 38% believe they should have no legal rights whatsoever. As for Obama's repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," roughly 75% of Iraq and Afghanistan military veterans said they felt "comfortable around gay service members." Even so, analysts assert that Perry's single issue approach may actually win him some votes. Go figure.
I truly believe the best way to use the aforementioned information is just to "spread the word," even if only to my own socially liberal friends. The "Strong" video has already gone viral on Facebook and Youtube, and, if the comments on Youtube are correct, Perry even disabled the like/dislike option under the video, because the video was receiving so many "dislikes." Clearly the video is receiving much more negative attention from liberals than it is from conservatives. Perhaps, mass-media sharing of the video will produce the opposite of its intended effect: if Perry somehow makes it to the general election, it will induce a larger number of liberal voters to get out and vote. I could also possibly use the statistics to convince people of the growing acceptance for homosexuality (and the legislation involving it) in the U.S. However, for now, I see no substantial impact that his attacks and/or these statistics can have on public policy. As aforementioned, Obama has already taken initiative to promote gay rights domestically as well as internationally, and, as he is not willing to legalize gay marriage, I don't foresee any additional attempts at policy changes (especially with the Republican majority in the House).
The article itself had a slight, but not blatant, liberal bias. The headline, "Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Is Divisive Even to Staff," seems to imply with the word "even" that the author thinks it's a good thing that the focus is so controversial. Additionally, in using the world only in, "Only 38 percent said they supported no legal recognition for same-sex couples," the author seems to view this number as relatively small and therefore a welcome opposition to Perry's viewpoints. Or maybe I'm just really liberal and I'm perceiving the article's bias as I want to perceive it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)