Sunday, October 22, 2006

Your attacks make you look stupid

Today I'm sitting here watching some football and an ad comes on. It's Canada Jenny attacking DeVos on his stance on abortion. Here's the kicker to anyone who knows anything about government. Until the United States Supreme Court realizes abortion is NOT a Constitutional right, the Michigan governor's stance on the issue doesn't mean jack. How could DeVos outlaw almost all types of abortion when the Supreme Court says it's a woman's right? It's like hiring an IT coordinator and getting upset because they don't wear clothes that match. Doesn't really have much to do with the job right now.

So what does this amount to? Granholm is doing nothing but 1. Scaring the clueless into voting for her and 2. Taking a pot shot at DeVos that really means nothing. Also, what it amounts to for people like me is that Granholm doesn't even know the scope of the position she's held for the past 4 years. Maybe it's just me, but I'm sick of the negative attacks on both sides.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think some of his ads have been great, but I saw one yesterday with his daughter in it... for me thats kind of a reach.

Dan said...

Yeah. That's the kind of ads I like to see. It's about the candidate and not their opponent. As a voter I'm interested in DeVos and what he's done and has to offer. I don't like the whole tactic of scaring people out of voting for the competition.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Mud slinging might not be the best way to run ads, but people that watch politics know how to do research and will do research on each canidate. However there are some people who wont. those are the people to will base their desicion on an advertisement and poplarity. I think thats where mud slining is effective. it may not be right, but for some,its the only way to get a point across for change.

Matthew Moss said...

For the record, Dick's daughter is a cutie :D

JHuck said...

This is the post that Michigan Straight Talk wouldn't allow to be posted on the "Michigan for McCain" site/blog (http://michiganformccain.blogspot.com/2006/10/mccain-booed-for-gay-marriage-stance-i.html). It is interesting to note who censors free and intelligent dissenting speach - after he made such a big deal about Universities that booed McCain:




"McCain Booed For Gay Marriage Stance"

At 10:46 PM, Michigan Straight Talk said...

The family is the backbone of the American society, which we must preserve with one mother and father. We have a deep philosophical difference. These social issues need to be decided by the people as they are the ones that form communities. If enough people want the issue on the ballot, then by law, it is our democratic right to vote on it in November.

College students should show respect for other people's view points. There has been a growing trend in the liberal academia world that it is okay to use dissent to those that are different than you. I respect your opinion and disagree vehemently, but choose not to put you down or insult your intelligence.


At 9:30 PM, Jayhuck TRIED to say:

I am writing regarding a response of yours to a message I posted on your blog.

Its all fine to say that "the family is the backbone of society", but what does that really mean? And what is the definition of family? There are millions of families that have only one parent, and there hundreds if not thousands of gay parents. Add to that that there are thousands of "traditional families" that not only emotionally abuse their children, but physically do as well, and one has to wonder what the best kind of family for a child really is - after all, millions of gay people were reared in traditional homes.

Are you saying that single-parent families aren't deserving of the same protections as two-parent families? And what about the families WITH a husband and wife that give no love or support to their kids, or who abuse them outright? - Do you allow them to have all the rights and benefits of marriage, simply because they are a male and female couple? What about all the gay parents who do have kids, are they not worthy of protection? Are those families not worth giving equal rights to?

I'm sure you're definition of family is a limited one, and that is somewhat sad, because there are so many good and loving families out there that deserve these rights, and SO many families that have these rights that don't deserve them at all.

I'm sorry, but hiding discrimination under the guise of "we need to respect other people's opinions", or "we need to let the people decide (because we know a public largely uninformed about gay people will vote our way)" really only goes so far. I too will respect the right of a member of the KKK to voice his or her opinion on the topic of interracial marriage or African Americans in general all I like, but to say that kind of speech shouldn't be booed is another matter entirely.