Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Hub Politics: Pandering to... Idiots?

Apparently Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli are out of the mainstream because they went to a debate hosted by a GLBT Law group. While some would call that listening to voters, Hub Politics calls it "pandering to every group possible."

Furthermore, Hub went on to call the forum a "gay debate." Gee, I didn't know debates could be homosexual.

Addressing the arguments Hub tries to make seems akin to debating a four year old, especially since they use neither logic nor evidence, but perhaps I should since it would provide a service to readers to show just out "out of touch" Hub Politics is. Just read this laughably ignorant sentence:
During the gay debate, both candidates revealed just how out of the mainstream they are, expressing their desires for Massachusetts to become the Gay Las Vegas by allowing our state to issue marriage licenses to gay couples from out-of-state.
Maybe the candidates are out of the mainstream for Uganda, but here in Massachusetts the vast majority of people support gay rights. However, it's nice to see Hub using Mitt Romney talking points (memo to Hub Politics: using someone else's idea without sourcing it is called plagiarism, but that's par for the Republican course). Added fun for capitalizing "Gay" for no apparent reason. Note, however, Hub Politics makes a bold statement by saying that being against a 1913 law written for racist reasons flows against the "mainstream," but fails to offer any evidence to support its claim. Are readers just supposed to take Hub Politics' word for it?

If Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick are out of the mainstream on this particular issue, chances are it's the mainstream of voices Matt Morgalis (the author) hears in his head. The voices were having a deep conversation with Matt when he wrote,
Strange isn't it that they want the same 87% Democrat-legislature that has gone against the will of the people time and time again to make that call.
I don't think a rational supporter of Mitt Romney wants to throw that one out there, but when one has a chorus of voices in their head they may not be so rational. Perhaps Matt has forgotten about his favorite Massachusetts International House of Pancakes Republican and his propensity to go "against the will of the people." Note to Hub Politics, re: Will of the People... Mitt Romney goes against the will of the people - e v e r y d a y. Heck, Mitt can't even manage to stay in the state for a week straight and it doesn't get anymore 'against the will of the people' than that.

PS: Hey Matt, don't forget it was Republicans who wrote and supported the Goodridge decision, not Deval Patrick or Chris Gabrieli. Just sayin'.


Anonymous said...

It should be put on the ballot. Then we'll see if the "vast majority" of the people support gay rights.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, because it matters how the majority feels. (BTW--this isn't Alabama. Hear it's nice there, though, and the majority there may be closer to your ideal). I mean, after all, marriage isn't a right or anything. No one's allowed to get married without having it approved by the electorate first. I also feel we need a majority vote on whether or not I can attend church, the whole Bill of Rights/individual rights thing is a plot designed to thwart the will of the majority. I deserve to have a say in every aspect of other people's live, damnit!

BTW, anon, I'm not really down with your marriage. Let's put it up to a vote and see if a majority feels you should be allowed to stay married, okay? If we vote thumbs down, you can still live together, maybe, we'l;l have a second vote on that, but your health care, children, medical rights, inheritance rights will all be affected. Tough luck, but the will of the people is paramount.

Ryan Adams said...

Ahh... uncensored comments. I just love them.

The "vast majority" in Massachusetts do, according to various polls. Slightly over 50% support equality in marriage, then another about 25% support Civil Unions instead of marriage - that adds up to 75% - and we're not even getting into adding people who support partnership benefits, anti-discrimation laws, etc but not civil unions or marriage. I'd bet we'd hit 85-90% or so if that were what we'd be talking about support, but support to me requires at the very least supporting civil unions - so that means about 75-80% support Civil Unions in Massachusetts. That's a "vast majority" if I've ever seen one.

About Ryan's Take