RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

« 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