« Integrity | Main | Wednesday Morning Tunes »

September 03, 2008

NY TimesWatch: When Is 7 % "Similar" to 49%?

Answer: When the Times wants to imply Republicans are homophobes. Noted with no little amusement:

This morning's New York Times has the fascinating results of a poll of the views of Republican National Convention delegates on a variety of issues. The poll reveals that 49% of the GOP delegates support either gay marriage (6%) or civil unions (43%). Only 46% of the delegates believe there should be no legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex couples. (The main article, which does not discuss this particular result from the poll, is available here.)

Several things are noteworthy about this. First, support for civil unions, an idea that just ten years ago would have been thought radical by most people — and certainly by Republicans — is quickly becoming the default position across the political spectrum, not just on the left.

Second, party convention delegates are ideologically more extreme versions of party voters. But in this case, Republican delegates are actually more willing by a margin of 10% to support legal recognition of gay unions (49%) than are Republican voters overall (39% — 11% for gay marriage and 28% for civil unions). This may be partly due to the fact that the convention is dominated this year by McCain delegates, who are likely more moderate and libertarian on many social issues than delegates at past conventions. But it's not as if these delegates are social-issues squishes. Fully 81% of them believe abortion should not be permitted at all (43%) or should be more strictly regulated (38%). Even as they are softening their views on gay families they are maintaining their strongly conservative stands on other issues.

Third, unlike their views on some other issues (like abortion and approval of President Bush), Republican delegates are closer to the middle of the American electorate on same-sex relationships than were Democratic delegates, 90% of whom supported marriage (55%) or civil unions (35%). Among all voters, 58% now support either gay marriage (34%) or civil unions (24%), a difference of just 9% from what the GOP delegates believe.

Talk about burying a truth you find inconvenient:

The sharp contrast between the Republican and Democratic delegates’ stands on the issues offers something of a refutation of the popular lament among some Americans that there is no difference between the two major parties.

For example, just 7 percent of the Republican delegates would choose expanded health care coverage over lower taxes, compared with 94 percent of Democratic delegates who would. The two parties’ views on the war in Iraq, abortion rights and same-sex marriage are similarly at odds.

This is true only if you believe that comparing 7% to 94% (in the case of health care) is in any way "similar" to comparing 49% to 90% (gay marriage) .

But then keep in mind that this is the Times. No wonder my daughter in law thinks all Republicans hate gays. This is what happens when you get your news from the New York Times.

Posted by Cassandra at September 3, 2008 06:16 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


While it is fitting and proper to heap scorn on the NYT for their various misdeeds and fabrications, I urge everyone to take a moment and join me on the Voice of Moderation Thread to say a word of thanks to a Great American: Slim Whitman! A towering icon of all that makes America great, it has been too long since we have given it up for Slim.

Posted by: a former european at September 3, 2008 08:22 AM

This is what happens when you get your news from the New York Times.

She's making the mistake of thinking it's meant to be *read* instead of carried as a fashion accessory...

Posted by: BillT at September 3, 2008 08:56 AM

As I recall, it was the dems who fired a gay shot over the bow regarding the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter.

These hypocrites will abandon their razor thin cherished beliefs whenever it suits their lust in pursuit of power. The party leaders turn into caricatures of "winkin' blinkin' and nod" as they make tepid denunciations of those who use these attacks thus encouraging their continued use.

The lefty anarchists are, by extension, attacking our family of women. Most shameful is when the left loon women join the fray against their sisters. These antics will be on full display particularly after Palin speaks tonight. Prepare to be disgusted by the blatant sexism that is diametrically opposed to the very equal rights stance the democrats tout when it suits them.

The democratic leadership should be very worried as the "junk yard dogs' they predictably disavow have already turned on their handlers.

Posted by: vet66 at September 3, 2008 11:17 AM

Vet, they're like Saudi Princes in that score. They don't care about their religion. They would violate it in a sec once they got put into a real torture room or had to choose between tribe and religion.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 3, 2008 05:13 PM

Most shameful is when the left loon women join the fray against their sisters.

Female Genital Mutilation isn't carried out by the men, after all. Usually it is carried out by the older women. That's how totalitarian systems work, ya know.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 3, 2008 05:14 PM


Now that is an interesting hypothesis. It had not occured to me YET that these attacks on Palin the woman is the rhetorical practice of female genital mutilation.

Tonight we will hear the real version of the Vagina Monologues!

Posted by: vet66 at September 3, 2008 06:09 PM

Regarding the Saudi Princes, it appears that Allah in his infinite wisdom is nearsighted. That is why the princes go to Morocco to kick up their heels.

But then I am a humble non-believer, apostate, or infidel. I can never remember which one.

Posted by: vet66 at September 3, 2008 06:15 PM

> She's making the mistake of thinking it's meant to be *read* instead of carried as a fashion accessory...

Fashion Accessory? I thought it was meant to be bird cage liner for zookeepers and aviarists.

You mean there's supposed to be a reason to actually carry it around? Whose silly idea started that trend?

Posted by: Obloodyhell at September 5, 2008 02:17 AM