Democrats: Pull gay, cloning ads

The Fargo Forum ^ | 09/01/04 | Janell Cole

[Uncle Miltie]

Funny stuff!

[muawiyah]

It really doesn't matter how any particular Representative or Senator voted if he then sits down to caucus with folks who hold to particular positions out of a sense of party and ideological identity.

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!

[Brilliant]

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.

[Lil'freeper]

former first lady Jane Sinner

I'd love to hear the story about the origin of that surname. (... then again, maybe not)

[steve8714]

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.

[goldstategop]

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.

[Rutles4Ever]

What about "gay cloning" ads?

[tdadams]

Dorgan's campaign co-chairmen, former first lady Jane Sinner...

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.

[tdadams]

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.

A bill designed to ban human cloning actually permits human cloning. Explain that.

[mlmr]

It is amazing how the Dims try to tell us what to say!

[tdadams]

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 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.

[JohnnyZ]

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.

[Brilliant]

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.

[harrycarey]

There are a lot of Democrats who used to be prolife also... Gephardt, Bonior, Gore, Clinton, etc.

Not unreasonable to think that Dorgan flipped.

[tdadams]

My intention isn't to be charitable to Dorgan, but to point out objectively where Liffrig is using calculated political cynicism and over-simplification to distort facts.

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.

[Brilliant]

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.

[dfwgator]

It is amazing how the Dims try to tell us what to say!

Even more amazing is how often the Republicans cave in to them.

[JohnnyZ]

There are many rock-solid conservatives who would oppose such a constitutional amendment. Does that make them pro-gay marriage also? Hardly.

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".

[tdadams]

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 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.

[Antoninus]

This is exactly the kind of ads that need to start running against the homo-promo cheerleader contingent in the Congress. Guys like Dorgan need to have a big anti-family bullseye painted on them. Then, let the voters decide.

The fact that Dorgan's campaign shrieked like they had been sprinkled with holy water tells me everything I need to know.