| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Associated Press; Fair and Balanced? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 05:27 PM (115 Views) | |
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 05:27 PM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
Here is how Associated Press reporter Laurie Kellman reported on today's Senate vote on the marriage amendment, in an article titled "Gay marriage ban fails by wide margin in Senate": The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin Wednesday, delivering a stinging defeat to President Bush and other Republicans who had hoped the issue would rally GOP voters for the November elections. If you read carefully, of course, you'll find that more Senators voted for the amendment than against it. Failure to achieve the super-majority needed to overcome a filibuster is not what is normally referred to as a "stinging defeat." Compare that characterization to the AP's coverage of Democratic Congressional candidate Francine Busby's defeat yesterday in California's 50th District. Busby, unlike advocates of the marriage amendment, received a minority of the votes cast. That must have been a really stinging defeat for Busby and the Democrats, right? Wrong! Busby's defeat was a "stiff Democratic challenge," and Busby mad a "close showing!" Not only that, but the winner, Republican Brian Bilbray, "won't have much time to savor his victory," since Busby will run against him in the fall. One more thing: the AP says, of the vote on the marriage amendment, that the Republicans "had hoped the issue would rally GOP voters for the November elections," as though that hope were now dashed. But why? The idea, obviously, was to force Senators to take a position so that voters, who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, can vote against those who went the other way. The issue may rally social conservatives even more by virtue of the amendment's failing to overcome the liberals' filibuster than if it had passed. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014326.php =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Put aside the facts of what passed, what didn't, who got elected. Just look at the consistency of reporting of stories. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 05:28 PM Post #2 |
|
ridiculous |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 06:12 PM Post #3 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You're wrong on three different levels. First of all, if you know that you'll need a filibuster-proof margin, failing to reach that margin by a double-digit number of votes is pretty much a wide margin of defeat. Second of all, those in favor of the Constitutional amendment are making no progress on the numbers. Zilch. The number of Senators voting in favor has remained fairly static. In other words, that double-digit margin isn't shrinking. Third, and most importantly, 60 isn't the magic number here. The magic number is 67, because a Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority. So, whether debate is cut off or not is irrelevant. You're so far away from the margin needed for approval you can barely see the finish line. Unless nearly half of the *nay* voters change their minds, the amendment never gets approved. The only reason it isn't a stinging defeat, if it isn't a stinging defeat, is because the Republicans and the W-ettes didn't really care if it passed or not. They just wanted the issue to wave around between now and November. And how do we know this? Because, just last year, W was telling us that the Defense Against Marriage Act was all that was needed, and that it was sufficient. Suddenly, when his approval is in the low 30's and the base is ticked off, the Republicans bring up a vote on a Constitutional amendment that didn't have a prayer of passing. Sorry, George, but you are waaaaay off base on this one. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 7 2006, 06:22 PM Post #4 |
|
Finally
|
I'm not questioning the accuracy of the article in terms of what qualifies as a super majority, or what is needed for a constitutional amendment. You are, of course, correct on those matters. Making progress toward the amendment is zilch? You're right again. I happen to think it's stupid to put such a thing in the Constitution of a Nation - any nation. I post this to contrast the way that the AP reported two stories In the Amendment story, the "Stinging Defeat" was by a vote of 49 to 48. In the elcction of Busby, the loser put up a "Stiff Challenge" and "Close Showing." Would it not be fair to say that Busby was handed a stinging defeat? (oh, and I also agree that this is politicizing at its worst) (well, almost its worst) |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jun 7 2006, 06:24 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
wait. "By a WIDE margine". Did I miss something. I thought it was by one vote? Or was that something different? :wacko: |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 7 2006, 06:25 PM Post #6 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Busby needed 50.1%, Frist needed 67%. The margins of defeat were dramatically different, so similar percentages in favor can be viewed differently. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| iainhp | Jun 7 2006, 06:27 PM Post #7 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Busby's defeat was a stinging defeat. From what was reported in San Diego, Republicans stayed away from the polls and Busby still couldn't make it. Last time round there were way more Republican candidates than Democratic (like out of 18 candidates 14 were Republican) and Busby managed to get 44% of the vote. And that was reported as a stinging defeat for Republicans. And to clarify - 50 something million votes for the last American Idol show does not compare to US elections. I probably voted 50 or more times for American Idol. Why does the press keep reporting that 50 odd million people voted on AI and we should run elections that way????? Where's Forest Gump when you need him. |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jun 7 2006, 06:27 PM Post #8 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh. I get it now. Ok. This is why I stay out of most political stuff. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







5:00 PM Jul 10