Posted on 09/01/2004 9:55:38 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
But Took a Dive For the Democrat's Liberal One
The Republican platform manages to make it into the headline of Adam Nagourney's lead story Tuesday ("Giuliani Lauds Bush's Leadership on Terror--G.O.P. Opposes Abortion and Gay Unions"). Yet Nagourney's story devotes precisely one sentence to the platform. The Times also devotes a full front-page story to the conservative nature of the Republican platform, Robin Toner and David Kirkpatrick's "Social Conservatives Wield Influence on Platform."
While the Republican platform is making headlines, by contrast, a Nexis search indicates the Times didn't devote a single story during the Democratic convention in Boston to the party's platform, merely mentioning it in passing over the course of several stories. Yet it’s an avowedly liberal document, which became even more liberal in Boston, with the committee dropping its previous support of the death penalty and retaining support for taxpayer funding of abortion, positions out of the political mainstream.
The Times' David Rosenbaum and David Sanger did file a story on the first draft of the Democratic platform back on July 4 (three weeks before the convention itself) with the reassuringly moderate headline, "Democratic Platform Focuses on National Security." While the term "conservative" is used eight times in the Times' story on Tuesday, the term "liberal" is not used once by Rosenbaum and Sanger to describe the liberal Democratic platform. A July 11 story on a resolved platform fight over Iraq involving anti-war liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich also avoids the term "liberal."
Although today's Times provides a sidebar article comparing the text of the two platforms, the story itself leaves the impression that only one party, the Republicans, have an ideological platform. It even quotes the Kerry campaign criticizing it: "Republicans approved a platform yesterday that puts the party firmly on the record against legalized abortion, gay marriage and other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples, reflecting the political clout of social conservatives and setting up a stark contrast with the Democrats for the fall campaign….The 93-page document, produced under the tight control of the Bush forces, tries to accomplish several political tasks: promoting and defending Mr. Bush's record, particularly on national security; sketching a domestic vision for a second term; and energizing the party's conservative base. Democrats and their allies immediately denounced the platform as extremist and at odds with the moderate image the party is trying to project this week. 'It's the truth behind the facade of their convention,' said Stephanie Cutter, spokeswoman for Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. 'It reflects the divisiveness and extreme policies of the last four years, while the public speakers paint a very different picture.' Gay rights and abortion rights groups restated their dismay. Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, declared, 'It's one of the most discriminatory platforms in modern history.' She added, of Mr. Bush, 'He's counting on the fact that most people won't be reading the letter of the law of the Republican platform.'"
Note how the Times portrays the platform committee negatively, as having been "produced under the tight control of the Bush forces." Yet back on July 28, Robin Toner and Todd Purdum seemed to find the Democratic Party's platform discipline admirable: "It was a night when the party not only paid tribute to its proud legacy as the advocate of Social Security and civil rights but also showed its striking unity and discipline in the face of the fall challenge to Mr. Bush. Its losing candidates Howard Dean, Carol Moseley Braun and Richard A. Gephardt ceremonially closed ranks around Mr. Kerry, and delegates approved the party's platform without the slightest hint of a fight."
Tuesday's story from Toner and Kirkpatrick contains more talk of the influence of social conservatives (were there really no social liberals on the Democratic party platform committee?): "The current platform shows the major role that social conservatives are playing in the Republican Party as it heads into an extremely competitive race in which each party must turn out its core supporters….Social conservatives, who pushed Mr. Bush to endorse a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage earlier this year, pushed for even stronger language in the platform, and succeeded. Mr. Bush has indicated that he embraced a constitutional amendment opposing same-sex marriage only as a last resort to prevent courts from deciding the issue and said that states should be free to recognize same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. But the platform, as amended by the conservatives on the platform committee, condemns not only gay marriage but also state recognition of other same-sex unions as well."
Eric Umansky, who writes the "Today's Papers" column for Slate, notes the baleful tone of the Times' story: "In a frontpage piece, the New York Times takes a seemingly horrified gander at the GOP's official platform."
Where did the DNC find the strategists who thought homosexual marriage was a winning issue for their party?
Are these the same strategists that thought Kerry could snag the veterans-vote? And that Kerry's war experience would innoculate them on national security issues?
Out of 15000 years of civilized society, how did the DNC decide that homosexual marriage was an issue that had to be implemented in this particular election cycle? Are they taking advice from secret Republican moles who are designing their defeat? They couldn't possibly have thought that America was crying out for a 15000 year old institution to be redefined during the 2004 campaign season, could they? Thats their plan for defeating George Bush?
At least the GOP has a platform.
The only thing the dems state is that John Kerry was in Vietnam for four months.
Or didn't you know that?
Damnit, boy! I hadn't heard. What years was he there?
In Cambodia taking dancing lessons.
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.