« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
11/25/2008
Video: Laura fills in for Bill; conservative spin stays firmly intact
How to hold a throughly unproductive televised discussion
Step 1: Book a like-minded person to "debate" with the fill-in host
Step 2: Talk about people who are not there to defend themselves or provide any insight.
Step 3: Casually throw around words like "blacklisting," ignoring the very real historical implications of the term
Step 4: Air it on a network more dedicated to choir-preaching than news
Step 5: Spin it all together, then half-bake at 8PM for about an hour:
Reaction 1: Acknowledging public records is not even close to "blacklisting." This is not a witch hunt: It's looking at people's donations and forming consumer choices because of them. It is DEEPLY offensive to those who truly have been blacklisted in their lives to so casually refer to community protest as "blacklisting."
Reaction 2: If we want to talk about boycotting companies with whom one does not politically agree, we could drag out any of the ten billion and six anti-gay boycotts that the social conservatives have waged against the years
Reaction 3: Why are you scapegoating Signorile here?! Twice, in fact. Don't get us wrong -- Michelangelo can take it, and probably even welcomes it. But it just seems misplaced and possibly even personal. (*Note: Mike tells us that to his knowledge, he has never met or communicated with Breitbart)
Reaction 4: Scott Eckern resigned on his own volition. And in fact, folks like Jeff Whitty who have talked directly with Eckern suggest that he truly feels badly about the donation and recognizes that the donation was a misstep.
Reaction 5: This is a violation of free speech? Uhm, Laura: Gays have EVERY RIGHT to look at the public donor rolls and ask questions. You, as a politically involved person know this. It's just that as a socially conservative person, you are more interested in fanning the flames than dousing them with reasoned water!
Reaction 6: If the Muslim community has funneled tens of millions of dollars into this fight, then Islamic leadership most surely would have been questioned. Vocally. However, that's not the reality of the situation. The reality is that the LDS church was Prop 8's major financier, which is why they are receiving such a large share of the public outcry!
Reaction 7: Stop with the Obama/Biden thing. Obama/Biden and Clnton/Clinton are all against marriage bans like Prop 8.
Reaction 8: Why are the "no on 8" people so willing and even excited to publicly own their donations, yet the "yes on 8" side so desirous of hiding behind anonymity? And what does this say about the fight in general?
Your thoughts
Who's this Laura?
I'm surprised they could find someone as ignorant as Bill O'reilly.
Posted by: Kamikapse | Nov 25, 2008 2:49:08 PM
Different face, same propaganda. I'll boycott anybody I darn well please and their whining won't stop me. I'm tired of them thinking they can do and say anything they please without consequence.
Posted by: Buffy | Nov 26, 2008 1:06:12 AM
She's another crazy talk radio, whip up the religious right person. Author of the delightful tome, "Shut Up and Sing". Interestingly enough, it tells entertainers to shut their mouths about politics. (But apparently only if they disagree with her.)
On another note, anyone else off-put by the expression on his face, as if there's a bag of some extremely offensive-smelling liquid hanging under his nose...this sort of constant disgust. Maybe it's just how he expresses himself, but it's kind of, well, irksome.
Lastly, I've had it up to here with conservative commentators trotting out the, "There are lots of gays people who are against gay marriage," argument. Bull puckey! They must have a really funny definition of "lots"
Posted by: PSUdain | Nov 26, 2008 3:36:23 AM
comments powered by Disqus
