Kasim Reed, Flip Flopping, and Politifact

and why you shouldn’t care.

So Politifact, which is in the business of writing reactionary responses to claims made by candidates and other public figures, decided to delve into an issue that didn’t need delving. Kasim Reed used to not be publicly in favor of marriage equality – and now he is. The guys at politifact spent all weekend figuring out how to turn their Truth-O-Meter from this  into this  and they couldn’t wait to try it out. So they decided to trot it out on Kasim Reed. Not so recently, the Mayor made a statement indicating his views of marriage equality had changed gradually and he was now supportive of the cause. However, the boys at Politifact think this is a nefarious, flip flopping fact bender that requires their full attention. So three months later they produce this.

They know nobody clicks on their links if they say something is true, so they have to create falsity nearly every time. Like this one, where Roy Barnes, clearly joking, suggested stripping the Gold Dome of Gold to pay for more teachers. That got him a So it’s silly and childish and though Politifact has an excellent premise, it has devolved into churlishness. I suppose it is a flip flopper, too.

But for some reason Kasim Reed and his Internet FightBack take it super seriously when they should just ignore it.  They filled twitter this morning, drawing attention to something nobody would otherwise read. May I humbly suggest they flip flop on that strategy and just let it all fade away.


  1. David C says:

    Oh god, those people are morons. I remember actually dealing with them before. They fact check not with expert understanding, but a kind of ping pong: they talk to you, then take what you say to your opponent, then back to you and so on. Objective truth is few and far between with the Politifacters.

  2. Jackster says:

    Wouldn’t a flip flop actually be more defined as taking a 360 on a position, not a 180?

    Or perhaps they’re referring to the circuit, where by a flip flop can take on two stable states, depending on the previous inputs and timing. But has nothing to do with integrity.

    How on god’s green earth does this sort of change constitute a lack of integrity?

  3. saltycracker says:

    How would the emotional mood be if he went from for to against ?
    It’s easy to fix something that evolved from the defenseless housewife raising babies in a man’s world……cut the apron strings….protect children, protect individuals and protect contracts…..but draw the line at 2013 marriages – no inherent spousal rights…..leave them in the past…..particularly where public funds are involved…..

  4. Jebus H. Palomino in a sidecar! We “breeders” don’t GAF what y’all do or which elected official gives his anointed blessing to your activities. Really! Ya-a-a-a-wn! The only thing I (personally, because I am a reactionary SOB with a penchant for semantics) object to is calling what you want “marriage rights” or “marriage equality.”
    It’s not. Same ≠ equal. Equal ≠ same. Get over that.
    And if you want to have the “same rights” to tax deductions, hospital visitations, and automatic inclusion in wills, etc., etc., there’s a place for that -called the COURTS. Go visit. While you’re there, please feel free to demonstrate how your relationships are as beneficial to the state and society so that you to may be accorded the same special privileges as I, as a hetero breeder, get tax breaks for.
    I’m serious about this.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Except that all heterosexuals aren’t breeders, and thus are no more beneficial to either the state or society as a same-sex couple.

      • Fine. Still no reason to redefine “marriage” as “same for gay folks as for straight folks.” The benefit to society exists because the nuclear, old-fashioned, traditional, “man+woman raising their kids” model is beneficial to society. To say that I hate gay people because I refuse to accept that that equal = same is utter nonsense. Hetero partnerships are advantaged because they are better for society (in the main) -there is no arguing that. Even if some hetero partnerships do not result in children, and enjoy a tax benefit because of their circumstance, there’s a destructive element in saying that hetero partnerships are exactly equal to, and identical to, homosexual partnerships. They are not the same things. You want the same benefits? Demonstrate the same benefits to society.
        Again, I’m open minded on this. I have no problem with gay folks getting hitched, civil-unioned, or enjoying whatever contractual benefits I, as a hetero breeder have “enjoyed” over the course of my sexual life. But why should society (or the “state” for you Libertarians) be forced to recognize gay marriage as identical to hetero marriage? What’s in it for society to do so?

        • Dave Bearse says:

          It’s quite arguable.

          What benefits are there in an opposite sex union for the state and society, sans biological children, that are not there in a same sex union?

        • John Konop says:

          You could also ask the question; should the state have the right to tell a religion they cannot perform a gay marriage? Most reasonable people agree on the legal rights………but what I find ironic about this debate, the religious freedoms in our constitution were driven by many very religious people. They were escaping state sponsor religion from the old country……read your history books…..

          • I’m not arguing that, that not at all. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the preacher who “sanctifies” the union. And again, I don’t care if gay people want to get hitched, civil-unioned, partnered, or shackled together for all eternity in emotional bliss. I don’t really care if they get the same tax advantages I “enjoy” as a hetero breeder. (I mean, come on! If it weren’t for the tax breaks that come with being straight, I might just reconsider!) The only thing that bugs be -the ONLY thing- is that some gay people and their supporters insist that “marriage” mean the exact, same, identical thing for gay people as it does for straight people. Same ≠ equal. Equal ≠ same.

            And Dave, re-read my comment above yours. I’m not arguing that opposite-sex unions are better or worse than same-sex unions. Opposite-sex unions are given tax advantages because that MODEL is more advantageous to society in general than same-sex unions. Just because the opposite-sex union MODEL does not = children 100% of the time is no reason to argue that same-sex unions are identical to opposite-sex unions.

            Frankly, I think if supporters of “gay marriage” would acknowledge the benefits to society that hetero partnerships create, and argue that long-term monogamous relationships were also beneficial to society (regardless of gender) we could have avoided much of this utterly silly argument.

            • John Konop says:


              …………..The only thing that bugs be -the ONLY thing- is that some gay people and their supporters insist that “marriage” mean the exact, same, identical thing for gay people as it does for straight people. Same ≠ equal. Equal ≠ same………..

              What do you want to make it different? Can you list via a law what changes you would feel comfortable without violating civil liberties of gay people?

              • saltycracker says:

                For a guy with concerns on entitlements, why increase the pool when we could redefine eligibility, reduce future costs except with those grandfathered and stop the expensive, mean fighting ?

            • Dave Bearse says:

              I disagree, and yet seek your answer to the question: What significant benefits are there in an opposite sex union for the state and society, sans biological children, that are not present in a same sex union?

              My answer is that opposite sex couple are no more advantageous to the state and society than same sex couples. The denying the tax benefits and special privledges is unnecessary unequal treatment under the law. Opposite six couples either have children they don’t. The tax benefits and special privedges can kick in after the birth of biological childern, if biologoical children are the core of your argument. Meanwhile, opposite sex couples have the same access to the same courts that same sex couples do.

        • saltycracker says:

          “The benefit to society exists because the nuclear, old-fashioned, traditional, “man+woman raising their kids” model is beneficial to society.”

          You have pointed out what this quest for a cultural change is all about. I believe that but have accepted that it is not the direction of this society. My settlement would be to continue my beliefs without society sending me the bill for their abberrant behavior. Protect children, protect individuals and protect legal contracts. There should be no public entitlements beyond the individual and their responsibilty to minor children. Let individuals handle their adult relationships as contractually agreed on between the parties.

          • Jackster says:

            Gays want to have families, just like straights.

            The quest is to open up the definition of family to include two parents who are of the same sex. If your family is only gay two spouses, then your legal standing should be no different than your straight neighbors.

            Think of it this way: YOu should believe in gay divorce.

Comments are closed.