Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Yes, I did say that!

Kobach - The Truth Please

Advertisement

Scott Rothschild, Lawrence Journal-World opinion writer, borrowed from the lefts' daily speaking points to write the article, "Kobach likens same-sex unions to drug abuse."

Rothschild links his story to what appears to be an "NBC Style" edited video of Kris Kobach speaking at the Republican National Convention's Platform Committee meeting. This is the flawed video:

Please take note that Kobach's comments were missing from the 7-second to the 13-second mark; additionally the first 6 seconds of his remarks were not included either.

The Video Quote

"(missing/edited-out) …. Especially the last sentence. As long …. (missing/edited-out) …. Well, our government routinely judges situations where you might regard people completely affecting themselves, like, for example, the use of controlled substances, like, for example, polygamy that is voluntarily entered into. We condemn those activities even though they are not hurting other people, at least directly. So this is worded way too broadly for inclusion in the platform.”

The Missing Quotes

Kobach began, “Kris Kobach from Kansas. I think the wording; I oppose this amendment. I think the wording is too broad..."

Kobach then gave the direct quote from the amendment that he opposed, citing the last sentence, "As long as there are no infringements on the rights of others, It is not the role of government to judge."

All Together Now

Kris Kobach from Kansas. I think the wording... I oppose this amendment, I think the wording is too broad. Especially the last sentence: ‘As long as there are no infringements on the rights of others, It is not the role of government to judge.’ Well, our government routinely judges situations where you might regard people completely affecting themselves like, for example, the use of controlled substances, like, for example, polygamy that is voluntarily entered into. We condemn those activities even though they’re not hurting other people, at least directly.”

Two critical, contextual pieces of information are thus missing from Rothschild's reporting. First, there is Kobach's 6 seconds of remarks, his preamble, as it were. Second, is the context of his remarks derived from the amendment; remarks regarding a broad based amendment to the platform - not remarks specific to same-sex marriage. Granted the amendment dealt with same-sex marriage; however, Kobach's remarks were specific to what he believed to be an overly broad amendment.

The Truth Please

Kobach, no doubt, is against same-sex marriage. However, to state that he "likens same-sex unions to drug abuse," or, that, "Kobach equated same-sex relationships with drug abuse and polygamy," at best is disingenuous and the result of poor research and reporting. Journal-World readers deserve better than rehashed disinformation from left-wing political blogs rewritten as news. Journal-World readers deserve higher journalistic standards than to use an Obama donation website as the sole reference for news. An Obama donation website? Yes, here is a screenshot of the current home page of the ThinkProgress.com website:

ThinkProgress - A Rothschild news source.

ThinkProgress - A Rothschild news source. by Benjamin Roberts

Correction

Oh, wait. It's not ThinkProgress.com it's ThinkProgress.org. Here is a screenshot of their home page:

ThinkProgress.org is the actual reference for Rothschild's news article.

ThinkProgress.org is the actual reference for Rothschild's news article. by Benjamin Roberts



Sending a Private Message or email to Did_I_say_that, regarding the content of this blog, provides consent to use the content of the message.

Did_I_say_that can be Emailed here.

Visit Did_I_say_that's Blog Entries.

*All images used under Copyright Law US Code Title 17, Section 107

Comments

jafs 1 year, 12 months ago

Thanks.

It's fascinating to me that Kobach doesn't believe government should stay out of things unless somebody infringes on the rights of others.

That's a classically conservative idea, and a rather good one, in my view.

0

Fossick 1 year, 12 months ago

Well, even if Rothy were right about the quote, it's a silly failure of logic as well. If Kobach says that A (civil unions) ought to be a member of set C (things the government forbids so you don't hurt yourself), and B (polygamy) is a member of set C, it does not follow that he is saying that A is B, as bad as B, or except in a very limited sense, like B.

Look at it this way: If A (German Shepherd) is a C (dog), and B (Dachshund) is a C, it does not follow that a German Shepherd is a Dachshund. It does not mean I'm comparing A and B. It does not mean I'm calling your police K-9 a wiener dog. It does not mean I'm claiming that a dachsund's ears stand up. All it means is that they are both dogs.

When Kobach says that gay marriage exists in C, he's not saying it's drug abuse any more than he's saying it's a failure to wear a seat belt. What he's arguing for is the continued existence of C, which is what the "overly broad" last sentence denied.

I happen to agree with the last sentence (and therefore disagree with Kobach), but let's be fair with what the man said before we condemn him, no?

1

Fossick 1 year, 12 months ago

Thanks. I always did love Ed Sullivan's show.

0

jafs 1 year, 12 months ago

He's certainly saying that drug abuse, polygamy and same sex marriages are all things that don't hurt other people, and yet should be illegal.

And, there's a clear implication that same sex marriage, like drug abuse, hurts the participants.

0

Fossick 1 year, 12 months ago

He did not say "drug abuse," but "use of controlled substances," which, like seat belt use (which both parties demand be mandatory), falls into that category of things that have the potential to harm, but do not necessarily harm. I've never heard his personal opinion on polygamy and don't know if he thinks that harms or is just weird and so ought to be illegal. He certainly says nothing remotely resembling that in this clip. So I don't really think there's a "clear implication" of that at all.

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 12 months ago

Usually when there's context missing, it's because those missing pieces serve to explain why something was said, or fundamentally changes the message. Neither is true here.

Both the "edited" version from the Rothchild article and the "full" version you describe here demonstrate a personality that wants to govern what you do in the privacy of your own home.

If anything, this version you post here makes Kobach out to be even more busy-body-bigoted-bastard-like than before. Where the edited post simply implied, the full version here becomes explicit.

2

classclown 1 year, 12 months ago

As I stated in the other article, Scott Rothschild is not a journalist. He is a propagandist.

1

Sparko 1 year, 12 months ago

I thought he had self-deported. There is enough "there" there for everyone to find plenty to be angry at Herr Kobach. I think he is on his 16th minute of fame--one can hope anyway. Dismal man.

0

Fossick 1 year, 12 months ago

All of that may be true. It still does not issue a blanket license to journalists to use jiggered video footage to make someone look worse.

If Kobach is as bad as you say, then Mr. Rothschild and/or the Democrats ought to be able to hang him without resorting to such shenanigans.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.