CNN.com, UPI advance Log Cabin Republicans' false suggestion that Palin supports benefits for same-sex couples
SUMMARY: In reports that the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Sen. John McCain for president, CNN.com and UPI falsely suggested that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, Palin has stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples.
In September 3 reports that the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that describes itself as "the nation's only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans," have endorsed Sen. John McCain for president, CNN.com and United Press International falsely suggested that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, Palin has stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples, as Media Matters for America has documented. Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and in another questionnaire, replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."
CNN.com reported that Log Cabin Republicans president Patrick Sammon "said the group was comfortable with her [Palin] being on the Republican ticket because of her 2006 decision to veto a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees."
From CNN.com's September 3 article:
Despite her positions on gay rights issues being largely unknown, Sammon said, the Log Cabin Republicans were also satisfied with McCain's choice of running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Unlike McCain, Palin has expressed support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but Sammon said the group was comfortable with her being on the Republican ticket because of her 2006 decision to veto a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees.
"She's a great choice," Valkema said. "We're learning more every day, but what we know, we like."
Similarly, UPI, which cited CNN's report that the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed McCain, reported:
While McCain opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposed a federal constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
While McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, has expressed support for the federal amendment, she vetoed a bill that would have banned her state from giving benefits to same-sex partners of employees.
"She's a great choice," said Log Cabin member David Valkema of Illinois. "We're learning more every day but what we know, we like."
In contrast to CNN.com and UPI, CQ Politics' Bart Jansen noted in a September 2 article:
In addition to supporting McCain, the group [Log Cabin Republicans] cited Palin's veto, as Alaska governor, of a state bill aimed at denying health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, [spokesman Scott] Tucker said.
[...]
Palin holds strongly conservative views on social issues, a number of news reports, as well as a number of activists on either side of the gay rights issue, say Palin has told people she supported the content of the measure to deny same-sex partner benefits but issued the veto at the advice of the state's attorney general's office that the bill violated the state's constitution. But Log Cabin spokesman Tucker said the veto "beneffited [sic] the community."














It's not misleading at all, Tommy. From MMFA's story posted above:
Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and in another questionnaire, replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."
So the facts were out there, Tommy - CNN and UPI chose to ignore them. Thus, "conservative misinformation".
WITH? Because it belongs here.
By omitting the facts surrounding Palin’s veto, CNN and UPI did not say it, they suggested it, just like MMFA says.
You could learn alot from a child.
You didn't address the point. Hearing the whole story makes a difference. When my four-year old granddaughter tells me her grandmother told her she could have a popsicle, I know she's full of it. The fact is she was told she could have one if she cleaned up her play area, which she doesn't want to do. She knows full well that giving half of the story creates the impression that serves her purpose.
If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, you deserve condescension.
Your search for the most unrelated and ridiculous analogy never ceases to amaze me. Your granddaughter's popsicle wish is based on certain conditions being met, so of course telling only half the story is misleading. Ms.Palin's veto is not based on any preconditions regarding her personal feelings because she did not consider them when issuing her veto. It was a veto on it's own, not dependent on her "cleaning up her play area".
"A" for effort though, but you didn't make your case, these articles are perfectly fair and accurate.
I wasn't saying anything about Palin having preconditions, I'm demonstrating a common principle. If you don't know that she vetoed it for legal reasons, it's natural to believe that she vetoed it because of her personal views.
You really can't get around that.
Why? Her personal views are irrelevant and rightly trumped by her legal duty. We don't need to know every politician's personal views on issues, as long as they uphold their duties, which is what Palin did, that is sufficient information.
The left, and you, are just irritated because her personal views, that you don't agree with, are not relevant public policy. And you want that reported even though it has no place or relevance.
"Why? Her personal views are irrelevant and rightly trumped by her legal duty."
Who's saying they shouldn't be trumped by her legal duty?
"We don't need to know every politician's personal views on issues, as long as they uphold their duties, which is what Palin did, that is sufficient information."
Are you insane? Her views would clearly have an impact on her decisions in the absence of a legal barrier. What if you had a gay rights bill tied in the Senate? Guess what happens then?
"The left, and you, are just irritated because her personal views, that you don't agree with, are not relevant public policy. And you want that reported even though it has no place or relevance."
They're relevant because her motivation for vetoing the bill affects how people view her actions. Since omitting that motivation changes the perception, it's a valid complaint. Sorry.
"No, have you never heard of a public official's personal opinion at odds with their public duties? If not, then you are insane."
Of course I've heard of it. Is that what you naturally believe is the reason for a veto, if that reason is unspecified?
"Read the headline of this misleading piece by MMFA, there is no suggestion of anything. Her veto suggests only what it is, you can extrpolate that to whatever you want but it doesn't make it so."
Her veto suggests what? Are people supposed to extrapolate that she did it for legal reasons, with no indication of that whatsoever? Why is that expected?
"You are just childishly arguing again for it's own sake, with no point. You bore me when you do that."
You can't address the point. How would Palin's personal opinion be "at odds" with her public duties if she were deciding that tied gay rights bill? Those that are told she vetoed this bill might think she'd support that gay rights bill, when she obviously wouldn't.
You've checked the Republican platform on what to do about gay folks um?
Currently abortion gays and guns are what they're about.
However if you've got some evidence that she's tight with the gay comunity trot it out.
Moving the goalposts? Nobody's talking about abortion here.
So while Obama's being painted as an unpatriotic Muslim baby-killer, and Palin has Dobson's seal of approval, the conservative base is going to sit out the election because they think Palin might not be as rabidly homophobic as they'd like? You have got to be kidding me.
Tommy, I tend to agree with you on this one. Even the endorsement from LCR is a bit tepid - they are "comfortable" with her is not exactly a ringing endorsement and it's pretty clear that the veto was not out of personal conviction on Palin's part. This is a bit of a stretch, IMO.
tommy,
As our dear departed friend Solon (God rest his soul) would say "Anyone with two functioning brain cells" would see from the CNN/UPI stories that Palin opposes same sex marriage.
This story appears to be a case of mmfa being overstaffed or under-managed...when producing space wasting stories like this one.
Unfortunately, those two functioning brain cells have not given them the ability of abstract thought where the extrapolation to it being suggestive would become apparent.
Those of us with all our billions of brain cells working at full capacity understand it clearly.
"As our dear departed friend Solon (God rest his soul) would say "Anyone with two functioning brain cells" would see from the CNN/UPI stories that Palin opposes same sex marriage."
And anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that there's a difference between "same-sex marriage" and "benefits for same-sex couples". The fact that she opposes same-sex marriage doesn't negate the concept that she supports benefits for same-sex couples. Therefore, it's misleading to cite that veto without explaining the circumstances.
Bingo, bob.
Only a blind partisan would fail to give credit to an elected representative of the government taking action against their own personal convictions...in order to follow the law.
In this case, an action that benefitted the homosexual community...as Brock's republican brethren recognized.
But don't worry, once the POW and the Moose Mom enter the White House, any homosexual marriages will be annulled and in the name of promoting and protecting the family...
I don't know - I'm unsure whether or not I should anticipate or dread November...
Dude, the GOP could nominate Squeaky Fromme, and they'd back her, if only because of her strong Family background. Now there's a pun worthy of the Republican party (also known for their jaundiced, senile sense of humor).
Remember Dan Quayle? They don't. He never happened. And 'potatoe' is also spelled with an e on the end in Alaska.
Now: at what point are people going to start mentioning that the Alaska babe was a staunch advocate of "abstinance only" sex ed? And that her kid got knocked up; so much for abstinance. In my book, that's a huge turd in the bed, politically, but again this is America we are talking about. It seems the more ugly, hypocritical, flawed, tasteless, mean, ignorant, hateful and stupid a person is, the more endearing they are to the body politic in the USA.
The electorate continues to be certain that a great candidate is one every bit as bottom-feeding as they are. The idea of a candidate appealing to a higher standard (and possibly raising the calibre of the citizenry in the process) and NOT wallowing proudly in the same swamp as some twobit sustanence hunter makes American queasy. It's what will do in Obama. He's just not a big enough loser, nor hypocritical enough to be president.
One day, the GOP will abandon all pretense and will run a mentally retarded man for president on the slogan "HE'LL SCREW STUFF UP REAL GOOD" and it will be a landslide.
But the ham sandwich would get eaten alive in one sitting.
Not if Joe LIEberman was there - he's Orthodox.
you have a girlfriend?!?!?
What's his name? :-)
Will that work for you?
I make light of most stuff but it seems to me that these might be legitimate concerns. I'm in a wheelchair...it's not like it's a good bet to let me race indy cars...and in no way do i try to make light of pregnancy or women in this matter. I'd like to know what you all think.
I'm in a wheelchair...it's not like it's a good bet to let me race indy cars...(USP)
I'd watch that and I never watch racing!
Just a guess.
In fact she and her boss opposed them.
>>Palin herself said she opposes funding sexual-education programs in Alaska.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_teen_pregnancies
It's funny to hear Grampy's campaign whining about all this media scrutiny. Did they really think they could drop an unknown in the middle of a Presidential Campaign without creating a circus? Of course they didn't.
Who would have thought that the mcaho Repubs were such sissies when a few questions are asked of them. The whining is deafening. "Cry Me A RIVER" is still the partys' theme song.
Dam Press...trying to find out some FACTS about a person who could be the POTUS in a short period of time. Keep asking MEDIA, I enjoy watching a good tear-jerker..this time the Reepublican Party is the poor soul.
Yes, Obama is much less qualified than Sarah Palin:
Harvard Law Degree < Idaho Journalism degree
Constitutional Law Lecturer < PTA Council Member
State Senator < Mayor of small town in Alaska
U.S. Senator < Governor of smallest U.S. State
U.S Foreign Relations Committee < Alaska is right next to Russia!
Saying that she has "as much experience as BO" only suggests to me that must smell nice.
What did you think I was trying to say?
quote - Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional
Actually it is a little confusing. Did the AG tell gov Palin her veto was unconstitutional or the bill was unconstitutional ?