RECENT  POSTS:  » Watch live at 11:30 ET: NOM's hilariously out of touch (and likely final) #March4Marriage » READ: Very anti-gay crew vows to never recognize civil marriage equality (even though they so will or face penalties) » NOM #March4Marriage coalition partner, religious liaison: 'Homosexuality is behavior and choice...immoral' » Mike Huckabee blatantly lies about something no civil marriage activist is seeking » Video: Man who once called for ban on gay teachers promotes #March4Marriage; because of course he does » FRC Senior Fellow: We are prepared to 'give our lives' to fight same-sex marriage (i.e. 'our eternal destruction') » Questions 'Face The Nation' should ask Tony Perkins (but likely won't, sadly) » Gorgeous clip from PFLAG Canada recognizes the many marriage memories that never were » On marriage, FRC prays SCOTUS will 'rule in the fear of the Lord' » AFA's new desperation: Marriage equality will turn bible into 'Mein Kampf'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/21/2011

NOM revisits crushing 'Economist' loss: This time with 'moderator was brainless' claims

by Jeremy Hooper

And now from the "Huh, what, are you seriously kidding me right now?!" file: The National Organization For Marriage has just posted this to the NOM Blog:

In January Maggie Gallagher debated SSM with Evan Wolfson over at The Economist.

Now the moderator of that debate, Roger McShane,
writes that he found Maggie's arguments "abstruse" (i.e., you need a brain to understand them).

But in fact, 37 percent of The Economist readers, by the last day, did not share Mr. McShane's incomprehension:
Screen-Shot-2011-03-21-At-11.52.59-Am
That's a lot of Economist readers.

A fair shake from the The Economist? [NOM Blog]

Okay, so a few things here.

(1) Wow, NOM's seriously accusing The Economist writer of lacking brains because he saw Ms. Gallagher's arguments as abstruse (def: difficult to understand, obscure)? Who's the one calling names in this debate again?

(2) Since when is the poll-obsessed NOM claiming 37% as anything close to good? That's not a small loss -- we're talking a handy win for equality here. There is no silver lining for them in this figure.

(3) We know for a fact that some NOM allies encouraged voting in this poll. NOM also linked to it in e-blasts, on the blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, etc. So this 37% is even with their own organized outreach efforts.

(4) What's with the question about getting a fair shake from The Economist? The Economist (which backed both Thatcher and Reagan in the '80s) has a reputation for being thoroughly reasonable. That's thanks NOM gives the publication for inviting Maggie Gallagher to this debate is to question the chance of a fair shake: First accusing the moderator of being brainless and then acting as if the publication doesn't know from fairness? That's just ungrateful.

(5) This is a virtually identical post to one Maggie Gallagher wrote back in January before abruptly pulling it. A post in which she went after this very site for supposedly "gloating" over these same numbers.

(6) Please NOM, keep posting this poll. We insist.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails