Ken Schram has the Schrammie. The Golden Raspberry Award Foundation has the Razzies. Now prepare to meet... the Grizzy! An award given to something so politically stupid it deserves recognition. And the first ever Grizzy award goes to...
The Reject R-71 campaign!
Now, as most of you know, I voted to reject R-71 but after hearing their radio ad yesterday I almost wished I'd voted to approve it just to spite the campaign for running such a stupid ad.
It starts off okay, talking about how our legislators are wasting time passing laws that don't need to be passed. Fair enough. I think we can all agree on that. And when I first heard this I wondered what it could be an ad for. Then they went on to deliver the whopper. It seems Focus on the Family, who dumped $200,000 into the campaign, wants you to vote to reject R-71 because "it gives equal rights to gay couples." Who thought that one up? Whomever it was should be fired immediately and never allowed into the world of advertising again. First of all, it's not true. Not to get into my reasons for rejecting R-71 too much but on this point I have to say that R-71 doesn't "give" equal rights to gay couples because gay couples already have equal rights. But even if the ad was accurate, did anyone tell the advertising consultant that it would be running in KING FREAKIN' COUNTY! I mean, really. Run it over in Ferry or Asotin County. It's sure to get traction there. But here? It's almost as bad as the time the Washington State GOP decided they were against witchcraft and yoga.
The Stranger has a clip of the radio ad here. They also report that several radio stations have pulled the ad after receiving numerous complaints from listeners. Not sure that's a good strategy. If I was with the Approve R-71 campaign I'd probably cancel the rest of my ad buy and let Focus on the Family have at it.
The TV ads on their website are equally ineffective. Luckily they've been wise enough to not run them on TV (or at least I haven't seen them).
(Feel free to comment on why you think this ad is effective or not but let's not turn this into a debate on gay marriage.)
Posted by MarkGriswold at October 22, 2009 09:51 AM | Email ThisCheers, Mike
Posted by: Mike in America's Vancouver on October 22, 2009 11:47 AMCheers, Mike
Posted by: Mike in America's Vancouver on October 22, 2009 11:49 AMNo, they don't. Even the reject campaign admits that gay couples in domestic partnerships are being denied the same rights as straight couples who get married.
They're bigots because they purposefully and plainly do not want to extend equal rights. The ad is stupid on these grounds, you're right.
But at least they're up front: Instead of purposefully denying equal rights, you pretend that no disparity exists. Your delusion is costing families equal protection under the law. It is really despicable the lengths some of folks go to toe the GOP's line. Denying equal rights to a gay couple, in my mind, offends the notions of justice and fairness that our society should hold close.
When faced with an injustice you cannot explain, Mark, you choose to ignore that injustice. It's pathetic and callous. You will be on the wrong side of history.
(Before you bring up this typical distraction: Drawing up a contract with an attorney is significantly more expensive than filing for a domestic partnership. Everyone -- not just those who can afford it -- deserves access to equal rights.)
Posted by: John Jensen on October 22, 2009 02:21 PMOh, okay. Roll eyes. It is hardly immaterial to the debate, Mark. I cannot accept the premise of your post that "Reject 71" was being wrong, and not bigoted. They weren't wrong -- they were right. Ref. 71 expands rights for gay couples. The notion that this should be offensive is bigoted.
But when this thread gets shut off for talking about equal rights instead of the Grizzy, I hope readers keep in mind my words from just a post before: When faced with an injustice you cannot explain, Mark, you choose to ignore that injustice.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 22, 2009 02:25 PMSounds like the Democrats response to the ACORN prostitution videos.
Posted by: pbj on October 22, 2009 03:30 PMI think the no on ref 71 campaign ad went like this:
1. Ref 71 would create equal rights for gay couples
2. Creating equal rights for gay couples is offensive and shouldn't happen.
On point 1, Mark thinks that the campaign is wrong. Both campaigns and most reasonable people who aren't fussing on the edges of the argument agree with this point though.
On point 2, I feel Ref. 71 is exploiting homophobia or bigotry to win an election. Mark, and others, may not feel the need to this because they don't accept the premise of the first point.
But in no way do I think people who are voting against Ref. 71 -- Mark included -- are bigots. Maybe there are valid reasons. And we should be able to discuss those reasons.
pbj, Sounds like the Democrats response to the ACORN prostitution videos.
ACORN may be a bad organization, but do not have the power to deny equal rights like our government does.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 22, 2009 03:36 PMThey already have been given special privileges by the state. This Referendum simply puts the matter to the people in an elected Democracy. And where do these non-existent infringements upon the "equal rights" you speak of end? Is any single person that wishes to marry but can't find a mate not also having their "rights" infringed upon? Isn't it also offensive to your "notions of justice and fairness" that you speak of? Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
Gay marriage is currently illegal in this state. R71 is simply affirmation of that law after bureacrats skirted around it with the "everything but marriage" law. If you want gay marriage to be legal in this state, do some heavy lifting, hit the bricks doorbelling and change the hearts and minds of minds Washingtonians. Till then, I'll stick with the voice of the people and not the mutts in Olympia running this state into the ground.
As for a Grizzly award, I'd select Contessa "they all look alike" Brewer of MSNBC interviewing her guest Jesse Jackson and introducing him as 'Reverend Al Sharpton'. Poor Jesse. All that time race pimpin' and mugging for the camera at every chance and still can't catch a break. No wonder Fox News is so popular, this is its competition.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 22, 2009 06:07 PM