I kinda threw out a general challenge at the end of this last post:
What took you so long, boys? Landrigan’s version is here (registration may be required). Compare his to mine to see the spin.
Well, someone took me up on it, is not happy with Landrigan’s spin; here’s the issue (and note: I have a new challenge at the end of this post!):
“Juliana never said she was against traditional marriage or failed to support it,’’ said newly elected Swanzey Republican Rep. John Byrnes, the state Senate’s former doorkeeper.
“Juliana never said she was against traditional marriage or failed to support it,’’ said newly elected Swanzey Republican Rep. John Byrnes, the state Senate’s former doorkeeper.
“There are people with extreme non-tolerant views in this community, and she was trying to bring people together.’’
Her critics and even one neutral observer there who praises Bergeron’s leadership heard Bergeron say she was against paying homage to heterosexual marriage alone as being in the party’s issues manifesto.
My first "he said WHAT?" on a re-read was on the "extreme non-tolerant views"; that has generally been tagged against TEA Party type folks, a la the Left. Now, I wasn’t there and cannot verify that was the intent. But one has to agree, it is often used simply because the speaker doesn’t like the stances that are orthogonal to his.
But I digress! The person taking me up on the challenge sent the following in and referenced this page which was from a Letter to the Editor. In reference to the above, this caught my eye:
…I believe that we cannot always be rescued or bailed out of the consequences – not banks, not corporations, not state and local governments and not special interest groups. If a person intentionally chooses to have pre-marital sex, they should be prepared to deal with the responsibility of a pregnancy….
…I believe a happy, traditional home with one (genetic) father and mother is an ideal environment for rearing a child and should be celebrated, protected and encouraged whenever possible.
Right. I had no problem with either of those stances at all. In the first, I have often said that too often, the Progressives and Liberals in our society are trying to socialize all risk out of society – that they have, via laws and regulations, absolved the entity (be it corprate or individual) for being stupid and force the rest of us to pay for it.
In the second, I also believe in the traditional value of a traditional family – that makes ME a person holding an extreme non-tolerant view? Is this what the Bergeron supporters believe and think? Gosh, that seems awful liberal to these eyes…
…to these eyes. Go ahead, see how that lines up to the actual Party Platform:
- Recognizing marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman
- Believing the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed upon; supporting a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorsing legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children
So here the answer to the challenge:
Re: John Byrnes
Last April, at our Swanzey meeting, John Byrnes made a verbal attack on the then current Swanzey Town Chair regarding the Swanzey GOP web site who had just finished telling the group that the web site was going to get a refresh. Well, Byrnes got very angry and started telling the group about how "offended" about its content.
Gee, and I only thought Liberals got "offended" that way! Again, I saw nothing on that post that pretty much any Republican that believes in the current Platform could object to – I certainly didn’t.
He had printed it out and circulated it at the meeting causing quite a stir but was never quite sure what it was that he objected to. No one else figured it out either. Apparently, from what I can make of this blow up, it is quite likely that Bill Hutwelker instigated the comment and used Byrnes to express it publicly. The objection was to the Party Platform’s explicit language regarding traditional marriage.
For Byrne’s to make such a remark in this Landrigan article is pure malarky.
And for Juliana to deny saying what she did is disingenuous on her part.
So, is Landrigan, Fahey, Distaso,or Pindell going to go digging? It seems that the MSM is asking the tough questions or illustrating stuff on Jack’s supporters; are they willing to do the same to Bergeron’s supporters?
In essence – are they going to play fair to both sides? Or is the slant to Gov. John Sununu’s handpicked successor?
