Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Concerned" Woman for Amerika Calls Stossel "Liberal"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
rusty charly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:01 PM
Original message
"Concerned" Woman for Amerika Calls Stossel "Liberal"
Stossel, “Give Me a Break”     3/15/2004
By Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel

Journalist on ABC's 20/20 gives a pass to so-called gay marriage.

Over my better instincts, I agreed to be interviewed by John Stossel of ABC TV News’ 20/20 program on the subject of same-sex marriage. Trusting liberal media for fairness in editing a pre-taped interview when you’re a conservative, AKA, “radical, right-wing, religious bigot,” oops, and “wacko” too, is very dicey to say the least. Can you spell “hit piece”?

But this is John Stossel—a pretty fair guy, right? The one who complains, “Give me a break,” when he thinks something’s wrong or misleading or a ripoff, as in government waste. The promo for his book by the same name says, “He takes on such sacred cows as the FDA, feminists, and scare-mongering environmental activists and explains how he became the scourge of the liberal media.” But, as it turns out, not all “sacred cows” and not always a “scourge of the liberal media.”

On Friday, March 5, 20/20 flew me to New York for the interview. Everyone was very nice, including Stossel. The interview lasted approximately 45 minutes to an hour. Stossel had all of the questions his producer had asked me in a pre-interview by phone with all of my answers. She said they wanted me because I was “articulate, passionate about the issue and obviously knowledgeable.” She said John would take the “gay” position. No problem.

Lots of questions with lots of more than one-word answers, including among others: state laws, a marriage amendment, San Francisco, Massachusetts, effects on children, health risks related to homosexual conduct, decline of marriage in Scandinavian countries, the meaning of a government license and how it is viewed by the public, civil unions, what’s wrong with “five or 10 people getting married if they want to”? Stossel asked that and what’s wrong with same-sex marriage several times. Even the homosexuals I’ve debated don’t ask, “What’s wrong with 10 people getting married?”

When we concluded, I asked how long the segment would be. They said, “three minutes, if it airs.” What they didn’t bother to tell us before we agreed to the interview was that 95 percent of the program would be a nonstop puff-piece for “gay marriage.”

In this past Friday’s show, Barbara Walters interviewed Rosie O’Donnell and her lesbian partner, just back from getting quasi-hitched in a faux marriage in San Francisco. Where, by the way, after couples complete a marriage license application with a disclaimer advising, “Marriage of lesbian and gay couples may not be recognized as valid by any jurisdiction other than San Francisco,” the city collects $82 nonrefundable bucks plus $62 more for performing the ceremony. The marriages aren’t legal anywhere including Baghdad-by-the Bay and these officials know it.

Wouldn’t you think a guy “who takes on sacred cows like the FDA,” as in government, would include a government rip-off in his segment Friday night, titled, “Love and the Law”? One more time. San Francisco-law-government ripoff-law-fraudulent marriage-$82 . bucks-law-government ripoff-law multiplied hundreds of times. Can you do the math here? Many of the people who shelled out their money came from other countries and more than 22 states, and they actually believe they got married. Isn’t marriage a “sacred” enough cow for you, John?

more whining at
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5374/LEGAL/family/index.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rusty charly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. more
contact info for miss larue


Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. CWA is a 'Ladies' Auxiliary' for the Gott Mit Uns neofascists.
They're an exceedingly reprehensible bigot group.
Concerned Women for America is a conservative Christian group that is active in politics in the United States. The group was founded in 1978 by Beverly LaHaye, and currently claims over 500,000 members. It counts as a member any individual who makes a donation to the group, no matter what amount. It attempts to advance its views on six key issues. In CWFA's own words (with explanations in parentheses), the issues are:

* The definition of family (working against same-sex marriage)
* The sanctity of life (working against abortion)
* Education (promoting creationism, abstinence education, and a perceived homosexual bias in public education)
* Pornography (fighting for stricter enforcement of obscenity law, and also against what they see as inappropriate content in culture generally)
* Religious liberty (fighting for increased rights to religious exercise in public settings)
* National Sovereignty (working against feminism)

Concerned Women for America says of itself: "We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerned_Women_For_America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. "Bigoted and Backwards Women of America"
is more like it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
khashka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. This always gets me.
She's upset Rosie was interviewed as well.

Wait a minute! What? A fair piece can only show one view? Really? But isn't she right and won't right always eventually triumph over wrong. But God forbid (literally) that they interview anyone who disagrees!

Apparently "right" isn't all that right. If someone gets to disagree with you it's a major threat and ruins everything. And with Stossel - Mr. I will lie through my teeth and call it journalislm Stossel? (As long as it supports the right wing.) Gimme a break!

Nice to know we dislike the same people. I guess. But seriously.

It's only fair if only your viewpoint is expressed. I'd like to say more but I'm bored to tears with this.

Khash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC