Monday, October 23, 2006

Charlie Sykes: Gullible? Kind? Nice?

Charlie's a very kind guy, I guess.

In the last few weeks, the gay-marriage crowd has been running a commercial with a bucolic scene. The text is very sparse, but what it does say, '...vote NO and nothing will change...' is deceptive in the extreme.

Over the weekend, a blogger told me that a number of conservatives are under the impression that they should vote "no" to prevent gay "marriage." He's been trying to spread the word through the blogs.

This morning, Charlie Sykes took up the question. He acknowledged that the ad is "brilliant," "clever," and "deceptive."

But he just can't bring himself to say what is true: the ad is deceptive because that's the only way "Fair Wisconsin" can WIN!!

Along the same lines, and regarding the ad, P-Mac observed that "...yes, nothing will change...for about 10 minutes."

VOTE YES!!

3 comments:

Amy said...

the ad is deceptive because that's the only way "Fair Wisconsin" can WIN!!

Judicial fiat will also work, if it comes to that unfortunate conclusion.

I'm voting "yes".

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

I am betting very strongly that there are just as many uniformed dems out there as there repubs. In other words, those who do not wish for the amendment to pass will vote "YES" for gay marriage, just like those who want the amendment to pass will vote "NO" for gay marriage. In a perfect world, they will cancel each other out. I am personally hoping that there are more stupid dems...

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with you people? Have you personally had your marriages threatened because gay people want civil unions or other legal protections for their families?

If so, then your marriage is not nearly as strong as it should be. The truth is that you aren't threatened at all, but easily manipulated by the Republican right wing that has taken over our party. This will be among the most embarrassing moments in your history, as for the first time, folks put a discriminatory amendment in our constitution.

I am voting No because the second sentence goes too far.