RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

« 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