Browse By

In Attack Ads, National Organization for Marriage isn’t Partisan

There are a lot of things to be said about the anti-gay, anti-equality National Organization for Marriage. It’s disconnected from reality in its empirical assertions, secretive about its donors, a front group for the Catholic and Mormon churches, and unable to draw an actual crowd of living, breathing people.

But there’s one thing you can’t say about the National Organization for Marriage: you can’t say it’s partisan in its activities.

A review of independent expenditures on attack ads against political candidates this election season (source: FEC) reveals that while the National Organization for Marriage has made multiple expenditures for ads going negative against political candidates, it has done so in a way that is substantively and statistically independent. Rather, it spent to influence the Republican primary race for U.S. Senate in California by diminishing support for the pro-equality Tom Campbell, a candidate firmly embedded in the state’s Republican establishment. Most of its spending for pro-candidate advertising this year went to New York congressional Doug Hoffman, who went independent after pro-equality candidate Dierdre Scozzafava gained the upper hand in a race to represent the state’s north country region.

The conceptual division of the world into two warring factions — liberal vs. conservative — and the equation of those factions with two parties — Democrats vs. Republicans — ignores the considerable struggles that split these factions. If you want to know how to split one of these factions, look for the cracks under the labels.

2 thoughts on “In Attack Ads, National Organization for Marriage isn’t Partisan”

  1. Tom says:

    Please give this a listen/view:

    1. Jim says:

      That video does not convince me: it’s too speculative and has loose logic. James Corbett (the speaker in the video) moves from noting a pair of historical acts designed to provoke war to the conclusion, “To think that such staged provocations and false flag attacks no longer occur would be as unrealistic as believing that human nature itself has changed.” It is not true that because staged “false flag” attacks have happened from time to time in the past, they must be happening now. In order to reasonably come close to concluding that, you’d have to demonstrate that staged attacks have occurred continually through history, and there is no evidence of that. The fake green screen background of flashing video screens, suggesting a crack research team of dozens, is just plain silly. And anyone checking out the details of what Corbett claims will find out how loosely Corbett argues: he takes speculative claims made without evidence by people who have lied in the past and turns them into “facts” “proving” that the U.S. Government blew up its own office building in Oklahoma City, etc. It’s bullshit, Tom.

      By the way, Tom, just as a matter of feedback, I notice that a lot of your comments follow the form of “Check this out: [link].” I’ll tell you what would be effective in getting me to follow those links more often:

      1. Write a sentence describing what information is provided in the link
      2. Write a sentence telling me what you think about the information provided in the link
      3. Write a sentence ideally telling me how you think that information is related to the article at hand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!