NOM revisits crushing 'Economist' loss: This time with 'moderator was brainless' claims
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:
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.
comments powered by Disqus