Thursday, October 16, 2008

Re: Bizarre Portrayals Of Gays In Republican Ads

Yesterday I drew attention to some surreal anti-gay ads from Republican candidates.

Well, the Democratic candidate who was the subject of the first attack ad I posted has responded in a press release:
Roger Wicker's latest ad is a desperate attempt to mislead Mississippi voters about Ronnie Musgrove's record and donations that he has received. The ad claims that Musgrove has taken money from liberal sources such as Friends of Hillary Clinton, gay rights groups, and abortion groups and then implies that he will support that agenda. The fact is that Musgrove has taken NO money from these sources and has a solid conservative record. Ronnie Musgrove is pro-life, pro-gun, and supported one of the strictest gay adoption bans in the country. Roger Wicker's outright lies to the voters of Mississippi should be called what they are - a desperate political trick.


In March 2000, Musgrove supported a ban on adoption by homosexuals or same-sex couples. The ban not only pertained to adoptions in Mississippi, but also ensured that Mississippi would not recognize adoptions by gay individuals or couples from other states if the parents moved to Mississippi.


Musgrove opposes gay marriage and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Thanks for clearing that up, Musgrove. Good to know we can count on the Democrats to counter the Republicans' homophobic slurs. Let me know when your state advances out of the Dark Ages and I might consider visiting at some point.

(Via Reason.)


taco said...

Congratulations, Chris. At least when it comes to gay issues, you drill down deep enough to recognize the status quo of Washington and the hypocritical moral contempt of the DNC.

God forbid you'd ever give Barack Obama the same scrutiny when he sticks his forked tongue out and talks about major military redeployment to Pakistan, when he won't lay out an energy plan beyond emissions standards, and dances around the deficit/budget shortfall question in the debates right alongside McCain.

I'll be voting Nader/Gonzalez this year. It doesn't matter that they can't win. I can't bring myself to compromise on my morals to vote for either of these snakes as they both lie, dodge issues, parrot talking points. I want to see real change in this political system, and after the debate on Wednesday, it's clear to me that for the RNC and DNC, "change" is just a buzzword in the same old game of American politics.

Christopher Patton said...

And I'll most likely be voting for Bob Barr, which will be the focus of my last column before the election.

taco said...

I find that hard to believe, considering the relative absence of criticism of Obama in your blog postings and complete total lack of opinion pieces on third party candidates.

I know you fancy yourself a libertarian, but if you were serious about it I would have expected to see numerous pieces on the two-party system, libertarian issues, candidates, etc. long before today.

Christopher Patton said...


Taco, I don't really care what you find easy or hard to believe. I don't just fancy myself a libertarian, that's how I'm registered. As I've said before, I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I have voted for some Republicans, but I regret one of those votes very much (which I'll be writing about in my column next week).

Regarding opinions pieces on third-party candidates, here's a piece we ran this week: But what you have to understand is that I don't decide what goes on the opinions page. That's the editors job. Given that I'm the only Libertarian on the editorial board, it's not surprising that we don't write about that party very much.

Regarding my criticism or lack thereof of Obama, just wait until after the election. Though I favor Obama over McCain to the greatest possible extent in the realms of foreign policy and social issues, I disagree with most of his economic policies. But, as I've made plenty of noise about on the blog, at this point the Republicans aren't actually any more fiscally conservative than the Democrats anymore.

Only a ridiculously anti-pragmatic purist would think it's hypocritical of me to want Obama to win when I agree with him on foreign and social policy while I agree with McCain on virtually nothing. If Obama's margin of victory in Iowa weren't going to be substantial I'd be voting for him. However, given the current situation, my vote is better used trying to get Bob Barr up to the 5 percent threshold. So that's what I'm going to do, regardless of your beliefs on the matter.

taco said...

Just wait until after the election, huh? I'd be voting for him if Obama needed it to win Iowa, huh? Oh, I see. In other words I was right and you don't take your vote seriously.

Washington and the two-party system is what I called hypocritical, Chris. You are dishonest, and don't see the forest for the trees. You talk the talk, but you do not walk the walk. While you directly espouse libertarian ideals and case your vote for Barr, you've been using a far more powerful tool, your blogging network, to circulate silly pictures of McCain and Obama campaign talking points on Sarah Palin and other non-issues the majority of the past year, which is deeply saddening to me.

I hope the smug self-satisfaction you get in voting for Barr neutralizes the bitter taste of your enthusiastic contributions to the system that keeps his party marginalized.

Nate said...

Taco, we JUST ran a third party editorial last WEEK. Did you miss it? Granted, it wasn't terribly in-depth, but it was there.

taco said...

Quoting myself, emphasis added:

"[I]f you were serious about it I would have expected to see numerous pieces on the two-party system, libertarian issues, candidates, etc. long before today."

A single 2-page editorial, a smattering of Cato Institute video postings, and a vote for Barr/Root does not constitute a conscientious advancement of Libertarian principles when you fill your blog to bursting for weeks on end with Sarah Palin gossip and rumor like the "secret mooslim" story.

The Daily Iowan's coverage of McCain is stark and condemning, and I approve of that. Your coverage of Obama on the other hand is certainly apologetic, and I'd say even fawning at times, and with your analytical skills and clear media savvy that makes me disappointed in Chris.

You have a very well situated blog. If you want to change the political landscape and bring the Libertarian Party to the forefront then do it. Participation is at an all-time high in this country and now is the ideal time for it to happen. Pedestrian ranting about the candidates being hateful ideologues (duh) is the fuel for the fire that maintains the status quo.

Nate said...

You said, and I quote:
"I find that hard to believe, considering the relative absence of criticism of Obama in your blog postings and complete total lack of opinion pieces on third party candidates."

"Total lack of opinion pieces on third party candidates."

taco said...

C+. Are you the proofreader who lets all the spelling mistakes slip through all the time? Your reading comprehension is terrible.

Given the context, the quote argumentatively amounts to this: "I find that hard to believe {that you are voting Barr/Root} considering [...] total lack of opinion pieces on third party candidates.

The only party this posting can even marginally logically apply to is Chris in particular. He is the one espousing libertarianism in this post and comments, not the Editorial Board. He's the one saying he'll vote Barr/Root, not the Editorial Board. And, as I was saying, I can't fathom how you could manage to squeek through the whole election year without writing one opinion column about libertarianism, the Libertarian Party platform, or the Barr/Root campaign if that's your genuine idea.

And I was right about that. It's not his genuine ideal. He's only voting for Barr/Root based on a secondary priority of his because his vote for Obama isn't "needed".

Nate said...

Taco, our names aren't on the editorials, so how - barring your seemingly amazing reading comprehension (obviously better than mine, from what I'm reading) - would you know that Christopher hadn't written any third party editorials?

And by the way, starting off your response with a juvenile insult is very endearing, good sir. There are a series of editors above me to catch the "flood" of spelling errors that you are finding. And no one likes a spelling troll.

taco said...

You are so abstruse I can't help but laugh, Nate. I wonder if a writer for the New York Times would tell their readers that no one likes a "spelling troll". But, I'm coming to expect less from writers like you and Chris who see your future apparently in blogging instead of something grown-ups read.

Repeating myself yet again: I'm not talking about the Editorial Board and their editorials. I'm talking about opinion columnist Chris Patton and his opinion column. I do not know why you find that difficult to understand.

Daily Iowan Opinions said...

Taco, when you assume....

When have I ever, ever said in any of my blog postings or columns that I felt my future was in blogging? Please cite your source.

And in case you haven't noticed, this is not the New York Times, so I truly don't care what the New York Times opinions editor would or would not tell his readers.

I personally wonder if the opinions editor at the NYT has folks who continually bash and hate on their paper but for some reason continue to read it. I could relate to that.

I'll leave you the last word, since the internet is your domain.

taco said...

Last word, eh? Spot-on Bill O'Reilly impression. You should look into a career writing for Comedy Central, because your newspaperman skills are lousy.

Once again, my comments about partisanship here are tailored specifically Chris Patton's blogging and politics, not yours or the Daily Iowan's in general. He is the one, after all, who has dominated the DI's blog pages since July with Attack of the Lizard King pictures and issueless Sarah Palin gossip. Your strong desire to redirect my comments here to yourself and the paper are mystifying to me.

I'll give you the same advice I've given Chris over and over in his campaign coverage: Stick to the issues. My criticisms aren't about you, and it doesn't boil down to whether the topic at hand is loved or hated. That is an extremely juvenile way to view reader feedback and only makes me further question your ability to understand the nuance of the complex political issues you comment on frequently.

The New York Times' editors doesn't spend much time thinking about the people who love or hate their product because they are professional and sophisticated enough to understand that different people look at the world through different lenses and find different links between issues that any one opinion writer could simply miss. I'm sure you can see the common sense in that, and in light of it I encourage you to reconsider your views of me and others who post criticism of your opinion writing. I read the Daily Iowan because it is my community paper. I criticize opinion pieces I find fault in because I hate to see my community be spoon-fed campaign talking points vis-a-vis blogosphere conjecture and slanted reporting.

If you can't appreciate that, you need to reevaluate your priorities as Opinions Editor and reconsider the purpose of a community newspaper's opinions section.

Nate said...

Taco says:

"It's not about you."

"Stick to the issues."


"That is an extremely juvenile way to view reader feedback and only makes me further question your ability to understand the nuance of the complex political issues you comment on frequently."

Do as you say, not as you do, eh Taco?

taco said...

You have a poor concept of who-you-are versus what-you-do versus what-that-makes-people-think. Those quotations are not a contradiction per se and it's disingenuous of you to force the conclusion.

I'm not sure why you want to play this "gotcha" game with quotes on this comments page. Does dismissing and discrediting me really interest you that much more than discussing the big political and journalistic questions in play here? You do realize, I hope, that I'm not a politician with something to lose from dishonest soundbiting?

I am a literate observer trying to have a conversation and make a point. You, on the other hand, have at least twice now inserted yourself into my conversation with someone else to play the role of the aloof Sean Hannity, talking about me rather than to me, pulling quotes out of context and struggling to make me look like some kind of cartoonish Snidely Whiplash.

I'd like to point out that it hasn't helped the McCain campaign make their case, and it isn't helping you.

Nate said...

I concede your point simply because you pulled the Snidely Whiplash reference.

Taco, as always, you are correct.