That's a very smart way of blurring the line of social responsibility with corporate interests, isn't it? But I think more importantly, that'll bring the onus back to the big oil companies to really take an active interest and stand in the green movement... definitely a move for the better of humanity!
My smoking is none of your damned business. I am going to die at some time in the future no matter what, and I would just as soon skip the last few years of extreme old age if I can avoid them.
The Government has no right promoting a "Smoke Free America" it only has an interest in telling you the dangers of smoking and allowing free people to make their own decisions. This is the same thing for marijuana, heroin or cocaine. The taxes collected from using any of these substances should be used to directly benefit or offset the social costs of smoking.
Fire all the idiot anti-smoking lobbyists and build some damned smoke rooms in airports, and add smoking cars to Amtrack for example. This way smokers get to live in peace, non-smokers get to live in peace, and the lobbyists get to find a real job instead of promoting fascism.
"Over the next two years, we will be organizing two million marriage activists from every state in the nation to form an online army of marriage activists willing to stand up for marriage on a moment's notice, sending emails and making phone calls to legislators whenever marriage is threatened.
"The initiative represents the most ambitious effort ever of its kind, using a combination traditional TV and radio advertising and direct mail, coupled with the internet technology and social networking tools that President Obama used so effectively in his presidential campaign. To assist with this ambitious new initiative, we've enlisted the expertise of Schubert Flint Public Affairs -- the same group that managed the Prop 8 Campaign in California last year. " [Emphasis added.]
Messrs. Schubert and Flint recount at length here how they approached the task of passing Proposition 8. This quote sums it up, and you can see how it continues to play out in the "Gathering Storm" commercial:
"We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply 'live and let live'—that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a “No” campaign—raising doubts and pointing to potential problems—in seeking a “Yes” vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign. We reconfirmed in our early focus groups our own views that Californians had a tolerant opinion of gays. But there were limits to the degree of tolerance that Californians would afford the gay community. They would entertain allowing gay marriage, but not if doing so had significant implications for the rest of society."
Isn't this a violation by these front groups of laws against domestic propaganda a la Pentagon "message multipliers" etc.?
www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html
Or of IRS regulations?
Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it right.
Robert Jereski
"And for those who keep asking about the actors — It’s a professionally produced ad. Of course we used actors. We say so right in the ad. Is that the best talking point HRC could come up with?"
Fair question, and NOM does have its own talking points. Most interesting to me in the PRWatch context is this:
I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."
This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”
Doubtless excellent advice for waging a war of ideas. But tell me the truth, folks -- polling points aside, wouldn't you really, really feel better if you could just come right out and say BAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE!!! :-)
That's a very smart way of blurring the line of social responsibility with corporate interests, isn't it? But I think more importantly, that'll bring the onus back to the big oil companies to really take an active interest and stand in the green movement... definitely a move for the better of humanity!
Another new NOM initiative is Two Million for Marriage. According to NOM's website,
Messrs. Schubert and Flint recount at length here how they approached the task of passing Proposition 8. This quote sums it up, and you can see how it continues to play out in the "Gathering Storm" commercial:
From Brian Brown on NOMblog:
Fair question, and NOM does have its own talking points. Most interesting to me in the PRWatch context is this:
Doubtless excellent advice for waging a war of ideas. But tell me the truth, folks -- polling points aside, wouldn't you really, really feel better if you could just come right out and say BAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE!!! :-)
Pages