How out of touch is the Pa. Family Institute?

October 22nd, 2008 8:47 pm · 5 comments

How about, “very.”

Just got the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s voters guide inside this week’s Merchandiser. “An impartial, non-partisan guide to the November 4 election.”

Right.

Just for a taste, let’s look at the presidential race. We’ve got 14 areas the Pa. Family Institute lists as issues. In this order:

1. Traditional marriage in Federal Law - supports federal Defense of Marriage Act

2. Cloning - Supports human cloning

3. Opposes judicial activism - Supports originalist Supreme Court justices

4. Homosexual education - Supports curriculum that promotes homosexuality

5. Energy - Supports expanded drilling for oil

6. Human life - Supports protecting the lives of children who are born alive and survive a botched abortion

7. Business freedom - Opposes laws forcing business to favor homosexuality (”You’re queer? Oui oui, monsieur, your table right here, these straight people can wait”)

8. Opposes gay pride - Refused to support gay pride celebrations

9. Iraq war - Supports immediate removal of troops from Iraq

10. Youth & abortion - Supports transporting minor girls across state lines for a secret abortion without parental knowledge

11. Gun rights - opposes an assault weapons ban

12 - Partial birth abortions - Opposes partial birth abortions

13. Traditional marriage in states - Supports state marriage amendments in CA and FL

14. Parental rights in education - Supports parental choice of schools in education

So - what’s missing from this laundry list of right-wing causes?

What is this eee-con-o-mee of which you speak?

This is, I think, a pretty handy guide to exactly what your “values voters” see as the most important issues facing the country. Recession? Stock market crash? Pshaw! What’s your position on gay pride celebrations??? And what about human cloning???

They’re in their own little world. And they’re welcome to it.

Update: What’s also missing from the laundry list?

How about health care?

Ah, but who cares about health care if they’re teachin’ yer kids about dem queers in skool?

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

5 comments Tags: Religious conservatism

There are currently 5 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog

UncommonSense
10/22/08
9:32 PM

Regarding your post and the outlined items contained therein - where is the bias? I am looking at, what appears to be, policy positions. To report on a candidates policy position is neither biased nor partisan. A candidates position on policy is exactly that - their position.

I think you're straying off the reservation again there fella ...

dowhatyoulike
10/23/08
1:04 AM

The "Voter's Guide" insert, paid for by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, was self-described as "an impartial, non-partisan guide to the November 4 election." It was in the October 22, Penny Saver around here.

The thing was full of distortions and outright lies, published by folks with a right wing agenda. The list of "issues" alone throws off the cloak of "non-partisan." It looks like another ploy to try to make it legal to preach politics and allow churches to endorse candidates, under the guise of impartiality. These groups are well funded, and there is no check on their audacious electioneering. This "guide" should be seen as an assault on existing laws concerning the tax-exempt status of churches and other nonprofit organizations. These people are seriously fighting a war with horrible propaganda, and understand there really is no one to call them out on their mendacity. Bottom line, though, is they have sinfully wasted huge sums of money backing the losing team in a looming landslide.

justplainjoe
10/23/08
6:04 AM

QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Oct 22 2008, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

why would they even mention the economy? it's either the washinton insider who wants to make permanent the bush taxcuts for the wealthy(after voting aginst them because they would destroy our economy) or the guy who wants to follow the bill clinton model.
now if mccain was right to vote against them the evidence will be easy to spot.
was mccain right, id those tacuts for the rich ruin our economy by setting us on a course of death spiral borrowing and spending?
or did those taxcuts cause the economy to boom and increase the surplus?
if mccain was right to vote against them in the first place, why on earth would he vote to make them permanet?
and if he was wrong about ruining the economy, why doesn't he admit he made a mistake voting agist the tax cuts for the wealthy and tell us all again the economy is "fundamentally strong"?
this is the double sideness that they want the fools to swallow.
and swallow they will.
while they are mocked from behind the scenes
for swallowing the swill the sell
amen

Shirley U Geste
10/23/08
6:14 AM

The thing was full of distortions and outright lies
The list of "issues" alone throws off the cloak of "non-partisan."
These groups are well funded, and there is no check on their audacious electioneering.
These people are seriously fighting a war with horrible propaganda, and understand there really is no one to call them out on their mendacity.

Sounds like our nation's newspapers and television stations!

JayEll
10/23/08
11:36 AM

I got this same insert, and I think the wording makes it biased. It might be a list of policy positions on the face of it, but it implies a certain view. It is clear with terms like "promotes homosexuality".
It also said that Obama opposes expanded drilling of oil. I think he's on record as saying he'd consider that as part of a larger energy package. So that's a false answer.

View Topic | Comment on this blog

How out of touch is the Pa. Family Institute?

October 22nd, 2008 8:47 pm · 5 comments

Lancaster blogs

More Smart Remarks