<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d5529474\x26blogName\x3dDimmy+Karras\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://dimmykarras.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://dimmykarras.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2234159095245132931', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Finally, a Romney Rebuttal

Someone at last wrote a letter to the Globe explaining that Mitt Romney's charge that Kerry's absence in the Senate cost the state millions in unemployment insurance money is completely bogus. I had considered writing them on this myself but didn't (I would have to do so using my real name, after all). There was another good letter yesterday too on Romney's anti-gay congressional testimony, but it omitted my favorite bit about deceased straight parents being better for kids than having live gay ones.

The Globe needs to get its act together in reporting these things. The news coverage on the calls for Kerry to resign never mentioned the GOP vote rigging, and the op-eds on Romney's gay marriage diatribe by Lehigh and Jacoby so far have praised the guv for taking an unpopular stand. Maybe it's unpopular because it's wrong.

I also found it amusing how the Globe editorial criticizing Romney on Wednesday contradicted the Lehigh column. Bear with me for a second and look at Lehigh:

"I didn't come to provide constitutional legal interpretation . . . but given the fact that I struggled through law school and remember some of it, I will give a try," Romney replied. "That paragraph says neither this constitution nor the constitution of any state shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union . . . It doesn't say that it is prohibited." That, the governor explained, was in keeping with his own view that the decision on civil unions should be left up to the states.

Lehigh praises this as "an effective moment" showing Romney to be "bright, articulate, unflappable, and able to think on his feet." But the editorial that same day said the following:

Yesterday, Romney tried to say that the constitutional gay-marriage ban under consideration in Washington is not more restrictive than the Massachusetts amendment the Legislature narrowly advanced in March. But the Massachusetts amendment would explicitly establish civil unions, while the federal amendment says no state constitution can be construed as conferring marriage rights "or the legal incidents thereof" upon any union other than a heterosexual one.

By my reading, that's a direct contradiction of Lehigh. One of them has this completely wrong.

While I'm on the gay marriage issue, see Vanessa Kerry's essay from the Advocate, posted on the Kerry blog.

Finally, the Ken Bode interview of "My Life" in today's Globe doesn't have much credibility when it misrepresents an anecdote from the book right at the beginning:

Early in his 957-page autobiography, Bill Clinton tells the story of his dying uncle Buddy, who admitted he was going through a tough time. "Yeah, it is," Buddy told Clinton, "but I signed on for the whole load, and most of it was pretty good."

The line is actually about the wife of Clinton's uncle, who was sick and dying at the time. In that context, the bit about signing on for the whole load--the marriage--makes a lot more sense. Thanks for reading closely, Ken.