Posted on 09/01/2004 4:52:54 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie
BISMARCK -- First, a series of heterosexual couples kiss. Then, two men are shown about to lock lips. All are dressed for a wedding. That is followed by three people, depicting a wedding of two men and a woman.
The campaign commercial's message: Sen. Byron Dorgan supports gay marriage and unless North Dakotans vote for Republican Mike Liffrig for the U.S. Senate, they can "kiss their morals goodbye."
Democrats demanded Tuesday that Liffrig pull the plug on that ad and another commercial that claims Dorgan supports human cloning, saying the allegations are lies.
The ads began running statewide Monday and will air for two weeks.
Dorgan's campaign co-chairmen, former first lady Jane Sinner and Grand Forks businessman Hal Gershman, issued a joint statement saying: "We know that Mr. Liffrig is inexperienced, but that is not an excuse for his dishonesty."
Vern Thompson, Democratic-NPL Party executive director, said Liffrig falsely claims that Dorgan supports gay marriage. "Michael Liffrig has obviously decided to run a cynical and dishonest campaign," Thompson said.
Dorgan's campaign issued two sheets outlining Dorgan's vote for the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act that created a nationwide ban on recognition of same-sex marriage.
Thompson also said Dorgan has publicly supported a North Dakota law passed in 1997 that dictates marriage only between one man and one woman.
Liffrig's campaign manager, Jon Zahm, said the marriage ad is accurate because Dorgan voted in July to block a Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
"So we feel that Sen. Dorgan, by not supporting the amendment, that opens the door to other coupling, including multiples coupling," Zahm said.
He said Dorgan's 2002 bill banning human cloning has been interpreted by several national groups, including National Right to Life, as one that would permit human cloning.
Zahm said $40,000 was paid for the two ads and they will rotate for two weeks
"We have other ads and scripts ready to go, too," he said.
He said Dorgan's record shows that he has evolved from a conservative Democrat into a liberal Democrat in the 24 years since he first went to Washington as a congressman.
His change was due in part to his desire to climb to the party's Senate leadership, Zahm said. Dorgan is chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee.
Zahm and Liffrig are both in New York for the Republican National Convention. Zahm declined to make Liffrig available for an interview.
Likewise, instead of making Dorgan available for comments, Dorgan campaign spokeswoman Rebecca Pollard referred questions to Thompson and to the prepared statements and fact sheets.
Robert Uebel of Equality North Dakota, a gay-lesbian rights advocacy group, said Liffrig's marriage ad was no surprise.
"This reflects really the way he's running his campaign," Uebel said. "I think it's a sad commentary on the political process."
He said it would further sour people toward politics.
Dorgan also began running television commercials on Monday, emphasizing his upbringing in Regent.
Dorgan is shown walking in Regent.
He says he's proud to walk through the doors of the Senate on behalf of state residents who work and want good schools and safe neighborhoods.
"That's something I learned right here, something I'll never forget," he says at the end.
Steve Schilling, an assistant professor of history at the University of Mary in Bismarck who has studied North Dakota politics extensively, said he doubts a significant number of voters will stop voting for Dorgan because of Liffrig's ads, even if they agree with Liffrig's social policy views.
"It's not in their best economic interests," he said.
Readers can reach Forum reporter Janell Cole at (701) 224-0830
Which is just another way of saying that every Democrat in the US Congress or any state legislature is as smarmy as Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy!
Seems pretty accurate to me. Why don't these Democrats stand up for their convictions? If they support gay marriage, they should say so instead of accusing their opponents of lying about their records.
I'd love to hear the story about the origin of that surname. (... then again, maybe not)
The Democrats are masters of the parliamentary double-vote and the safe-seat-block. All Dems outside NY, CA, WA, MA, and a couple others got in as pro-life, then changed face as the prospect of national party office neared.
I confess I don't understand why liberals whine, moan and bitch when we take them at their word. They do support gay marriage and no holds barred cloning. I don't see where its a "smear" to represent accurately their views on these issues to the public.
What about "gay cloning" ads?
When you're trying to counter that you're not an immoral candidate, it doesn't help when your campaign co-chair's name is "Sinner".
This should be good for more than a few chuckles.
A bill designed to ban human cloning actually permits human cloning. Explain that.
It is amazing how the Dims try to tell us what to say!
I don't think that's the case here. My impression is that Liffrig's ad is dishonest. There are many reasons a legislator may choose not to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage even if he's opposed to gay marriage.
Liffrig's reduction of this debate to the most simplistic terms ("the marriage ad is accurate because Dorgan voted in July to block a Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage") is inaccurate and disingenuous and only a fool would take the bait.
Happens all the time -- weak bills with lots of loopholes that supposedly ban cloning, or PBA, really would allow same b/c of the loopholes. Gives the politician cover by saying he opposed without really opposing it.
You're too charitable to Dorgan. I find it interesting that so many Democrats denounce gay marriage, but so few of them are willing to actually do something about it. They are simply demogoguing the issue, and they are doing it very successfully. They've had a lot of practice.
There are a lot of Democrats who used to be prolife also... Gephardt, Bonior, Gore, Clinton, etc.
Not unreasonable to think that Dorgan flipped.
There are many rock-solid conservatives who would oppose such a constitutional amendment. Does that make them pro-gay marriage also? Hardly.
Only a fool would take such simplistic political spin at face value. I hate to see those tactics. It cheapens real discourse and fosters political cynicism.
Yes, but the problem with your logic is that the debate over this amendment is divided along party lines, and yet both sides claim they are opposed to gay marriage. If it were a principled debate, as you seem to think, then the party lines would make no difference. It's not because of principle. It's simply demogoguery.
Even more amazing is how often the Republicans cave in to them.
So no one who opposed the Marriage Amendment can be criticized as pro gay marriage because a small minority of them had reasons they considered conservative?
I think you "doth protest too much".
I see you favor the same simplistic and disingenuous debating style as Liffrig. Such rhetorical devices might make you feel like you've scored a point, but it actually makes it easy to dismiss you as a sophist.
He he he he he he
Former first Lady Jane Sinner?
Intersting on what a 527 group could do, e.g. advertising a candidate supports something it does not.
Objectively, and realistically...yes.
It would be great to get rid of that POS. Just can't see the NoDakans pulling the trigger on that loser.
As Renquist pointed out in the Washington "right to die" case (?Glucksberg or Compassion in Dying vs. Washington), these disputed cases should be decided by the people. In the case of abortion, cloning and marriage, they should rightly be decided by the States. However, the SCOTUS has ruled in such a way (witness last week's partial birth abortion ban ruling in New York) that there is no way for States to rule anymore.
The only solution, now, is for a vote on a Life Amendment, a Marriage Amendment. There is some possiblity of a tweak with Ron Paul's bill HR 1546 restricting Federal courts from considering abortion or life laws as passed by the States, but I doubt it would do any good.
These ads are right on target. Run them again and again.
With all due respect, there are many who disagree with you. We see the constitution as the protector of liberty and a limitation on what government may not do, not what citizens may not do. The last failed experiment with that was Prohibition. Let's not repeat the same mistakes.
The Constitution is not subject to be changed willy nilly by the inflamed passions of reactionaries.
Blah blah yourself. Obviously you hit the reply button before reading much, especially my reply in #15.
Steve Schilling, an assistant professor of history at the University of Mary in Bismarck who has studied North Dakota politics extensively, said he doubts a significant number of voters will stop voting for Dorgan because of Liffrig's ads, even if they agree with Liffrig's social policy views."It's not in their best economic interests," he said.
It's the old DNC mantra that the Republican party is only for rich people. They don't like people leaving the Democrat plantation and voting for social policy (choosing a side in the culture war).
Actually no. That's not a credible example of sophistry at all. Sophistry is "have you stopped beating your wife?", which is about the level this case stoops to.
NOTE: On June 10, 2002, Senator Dorgan introduced a revised version of S. 2076 that does not contain the qualifying phrase "for the purpose of creating a cloned human being" that appeared in the original version of the bill. The new version, called a "star print," has the same bill number. The revised bill would allow any number of human embryos to be created by cloning, but would make it unlawful to implant such an embryo into "a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus."
Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress: S.2076
Title: A bill to prohibit the cloning of humans.
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 4/9/2002)
Human Cloning Prohibition Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 2076 IS1S
(Star Print)
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2076
To prohibit the cloning of humans.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 9, 2002
Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Obviously, that is how it should be. But, here on the ground, the Constitution is constantly being changed "willy nilly by the inflamed passions" of black-robed tyrants. Roe v. Wade? Lawrence? McConnell???!?
There's only one weapon you can use against them: the power of amendment.
Citizens can do what they want -- the government can't recognize homosexual marriages. Unless you're saying that gays have a right to government recognition of their relationships?
But it's obvious that you are just arguing from a pro-gay libertarian viewpoint and have no interest in rational discussion. You just condemn anyone who stands against gay marriage. Dorgan hasn't admitted being in favor of gay marriage so he can't be criticized for it; you don't want to answer my challenge to your comments so you call me a sophist and ignore the substance.
Congratulations, you've managed to miss my point completely despite my explaining it several times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.