Thursday, May 18, 2006

Establishment Media Gives Puff Pieces to Favorites

Did you see the nice endorsement that Dan Greenberg got in his state rep. race against Kurt Hetherington? This Greenberg guy must be awesome to get a full editorial column endorsing him in a state rep. race!

What you say, he is Paul Greenberg's son? Well, they did mention that, but I still question the propriety of it. I honestly don't know which of these two men would make a better state representative. I have heard nice things about them both. I do know that I don't want to spend the next two years reading articles from the Democrat-Gazette pumping up young Greenberg's achievements into the stratosphere.

Then there is the Stephens media group. They basically ran Representative Doug Matayo's press release announcing that he is pro-life! What a news flash! The headline was "Matayo Would Support Abortion Ban". Only he wouldn't. He would only ban most of them. The text of the article said, "Matayo said he would favor a ban that provided exceptions to save the pregnant woman's life and in cases of rape or incest - a more moderate stance than lawmakers in South Dakota, which passed an abortion ban this year that only allows an abortion to save a woman's life.

(continued, click "thursday" below for rest of story)

22 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The South Dakota law is designed as a test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1970s decision that granted abortion rights."

The circumstances of rape and incest are very emotional ones, and examples of hard cases that make for bad law. Certainly, rapists and child molesters should be executed. The question is, is it right to allow the execution of a baby because their father is a rapist? Is it Rep. Matayo's position that it is OK to execute a baby if their father is a rapist? And is such a position truly 100% pro-life?

I understand that both Senator Jim Holt and Rep. Matayo have a 100% pro-life VOTING RECORD on the limited bills brought up before them, but Matayo is saying that he would NOT vote for the South Dakota bill, which a majority of the South Dakota legislature voted for.

Matayo wants exceptions besides the LIFE of the mother. That is not a 100% pro-life position. It is a "pro-life with exceptions" position.

8:08 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What postion for legislation does the Arkansas Right to Life take?

I think I saw a David Sanders article about that a couple of weeks ago.

If what has been said elsewhere is true Matayo agrees with the principle but is not prepared to legislate it for MINORS. But telling the truth is not what you are interested in.

So what you have is that Matayo is MORE pro-life than even the ARTL, but perhaps less of a bull in the china closet who will throw his own friend, Rose Mimms, under the bus because he, Jim Holt, knows better how to stop abortion than someone who has devoted her life to it and is her job.

8:45 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I don't know what has been "said elsewhere", I gave an exact quote from a linked article where it states unequivically that Matayo would NOT vote for the bill that the South Dakota legislature passed because that bill did not obtain the exceptions he desired- which were for rape and incest.

I want to know if it is Rep. Matayo's position that it is OK to execute a baby if their father is a rapist.

Doug Matayo is very hard to pin down in his positions sometimes. I know most politicians are, and his skills at it are better than most. Here we have a claim from Doug Thompson that says DM would NOT have voted for an abortion ban because it did not contain enough exceptions. That is NOT a 100% pro-life position. It is "conditionally pro-life".

9:01 PM, May 18, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I understand that the South Dakota Right to Life did not like that bill either. Why not? It passed. I would hope they would want to work themselves out of a job.

If this is "not the right time" to stop abortion then when is, after another million babies have been put to death?

9:03 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently Rose Mimms and the Arkansas Right to Life are not 100% pro-life either.

9:04 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes you say that?

9:32 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/03/12/DavidJSanders/334827.html

I thought I had read on another blog post someplace that David Sanders represented their position.

Can someone confirm that?

9:43 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark

Stop lying, the article says that Matayo's official position is less than the Dakota bill, it does not say that he wouldn't vote for it.

Whether he would or not is not included in the article.

12:02 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article also had a quote from Jim Holt saying he agrees with Matayo on this issue. I guess that means that Jim Holt agreed with the exemptions. I'm sure now you'll say, "that isn't what he meant". It's amazing how Mark Moore can read someone's minds instead of just reading and believing what they say, like the rest of us do.

Here Mark is trying to defend Jim Holt by saying the media can spin things and not really print what was really said, but when it comes to Matayo, Mark believes that the media prints things word for word. Go figure.

Mark, you have officially lost it. You argue one point for Jim but you don't follow up with that argument when it comes to someone you don't like.

5:34 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I don't have to read his mind. I was behind the scenes with him when this issue came up previously. I know what is on his mind and heart on this issue and I know that you once again are wrong.

When Holt says in the article "we agree on abortion" he may not have even known about DM's exceptions. He likely just got a call that said "Matayo has issued a press release saying it is time to ban abortion in Arkansas, how do you feel about that?"

How do I know that he did not agree with Doug about the South Dakota bill? And as a matter of fact I DO know that is not what he meant, because when I was his campaign manager he talked about adding a ballot initiative like the South Dakota bill- and yes we discussed that the life of the mother was the only exception- to the campaign.

I WAS THE ONE who said the issue is already in the system because of South Dakota and we need to limit the ballot petitions to what we have now. We both thought the South Dakota bill was a good bill that needed few if any modifications.

6:19 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

12:02 AM There you go again! Nobody can have an honest disagreement with Matayo's Maddogs. Everybody that does not see it your way MUST be lying. In your twisted mind, there is no room for doubt and anyone who does not agree with you HAS to lack integrity.

When the article says this: "Matayo said he would favor a ban that provided exceptions to save the pregnant woman's life and in cases of rape or incest - a more moderate stance than lawmakers in South Dakota, which passed an abortion ban this year that only allows an abortion to save a woman's life."

I have to take it like it is written. Matayo wants exceptions where you can take the child's life, even when no other life is threatened, the South Dakota bill bans too many abortions for Doug Matayo.

You may not think that it means that. In your magical world, you may think he can be for it and against it at the same time, but just because I don't live in that world does NOT mean I am lying.

6:27 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And we have to take it like it is written. Jim Holt claimed to have an endorsement from ARTL when he did not. He lied.

People are really getting tired of you having one set of rules for Jim and another set for everyone else.

6:39 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"and in cases of rape or incest..."

If you read his press release as you claim, it states "in case of rape or incest OF A CHILD." We're talking about pregnant children here, whose lives in fact could bde threatened.

7:11 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if there lives are threatened then that is the one circumstance when abortion is consistenet with a 100% pro-life position- if it is threatened. But that is a "life of the mother" exception and that is not what DM is talking about there. He is talking about an ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION. And the INCEST part of his exception is for "children", not the other exception.

7:22 AM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ARTL states that they are against abortion EXCEPT when the life of the mother is at stake. So they aren't 100% pro-life if we go by aboslutly no abortions at all.

7:31 AM, May 19, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"So they aren't 100% pro-life"

C'mon, if the LIFE of the mother is threatened and an abortion is required to save the LIFE of the mother that is still a 100% Pro-life position. It is the one exception I can think of for abortion that is permissible that still allows one to be "100% pro-life" regarding abortion.

Everything short of that is "conditionally pro-life" because any view short of that has circumstances where something is placed ABOVE the right of innocent human beings to life.

3:50 PM, May 19, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

That makes ARTL 100% pro-life, while Doug Matayo on the other hand, is not.

3:51 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meow Mix commercials sounds a lot like Mark Moore.

9:09 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:51 - Then neither is Jim Holt, who stated he agrees with Matayo.

10:07 PM, May 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you not read the 6:19 post where Holt's former campaign manager said Holt wanted a bill like the South Dakota bill, which is a true 100% pro-life bill- unlike what Matayo wants, which is to get credit for "banning abortion" but leaving exemptions in place.

Holt agrees with Matayo that abortion should be banned- that does not mean he agrees with him on the execptions.

9:32 AM, May 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That does not mean he Doesn't, since he has never stated so.

And the South Dakota bill exempts the life of the mother, so it is not entirely pro-life for the baby.

7:14 PM, May 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But it is entirely PRO-LIFE. Even if you maintain that life of the baby should not count less than the life of the mother, should it count more?

7:32 PM, May 21, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home