ABC Plugs Gay Marriage as Economic Stimulus, ‘Former Republican’ Bloomberg Lectures GOP
On Sunday’s World News, ABC correspondent T.J. Winick filed a report in which he presented same-sex marriage as a way to stimulate the ailing economy - potentially of the entire nation - by getting lots of new married couples to spend money on weddings. Winick also featured a soundbite of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticizing Republicans for opposing same-sex marriage.
And, as Christiane Amanpour appeared on the same day’s Good Morning America to plug her interview with Bloomberg on This Week, she showed a similar soundbite after GMA co-host Bianna Golodryga brought up Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s views on homosexuality.
On World News, after anchor David Muir introduced the report by referring to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state as a "money maker," correspondent Winick soon elaborated:
It all means millions of dollars in state revenue at a time when New York needs it most. Gay marriage is expected to bring in $391 million to New York over the next three years. And if gay marriage was legalized nationwide, it's estimated it would add $9.5 billion a year to the economy. Business is already booming at City Cakes in Manhattan.
Winick then gave New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - currently an independent - an unchallenged soundbite to criticize the Republican Party for not supporting gay marriage. Without noting that Bloomberg had originally been a Democrat - before turning Republican and then independent - the ABC correspondent bolstered the New York mayor’s criticism of the GOP by labeling him as a "former Republican":
T.J. WINICK: Along with the governor, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lobbied for same-sex marriage. Bloomberg - a former Republican - says the party's stance against same-sex marriage is at odds with the GOP philosophy of personal freedom.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: They want the government out of your personal life - government should not tell you who you can marry. And they think that marriage is a stabilizing influence on society and they value the sanctity of marriage.
Sunday’s Good Morning America showed the same soundbite earlier that day when This Week host Christiane Amanpour appeared to preview her interview with the mayor. Co-anchor Bianna Golodryga brought up comments that Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann had made about homosexuality, setting up Amanpour to show her clip of Bloomberg lecturing the GOP. Golodryga:
You asked him about Michele Bachmann's past comments about homosexuality calling it, quote, "personal bondage, despair and enslavement," even comparing it to Satan. What did Mayor Bloomberg have to say about that?
Amanpour gave Bloomberg’s view before showing the clip. Amanpour:
I did ask them in that context, and he basically said this is a trend that's going to be growing, people's ideas on this issue are evolving around the country, and in the not too distant future, he predicted that people will turn around and say, well, what was all the fuss about? But in specific reference to what Michele Bachmann is quoted to have said in the past, this is his response.
Golodryga concluded the segment by bringing up the economic impact of the increase in weddings: "And it's interesting, as a prominent businessman, he also thinks it will do a lot to help the bottom line in New York state, as well."
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the Sunday, July 24, World News on ABC, followed by the same day’s Good Morning America on ABC:
#From World News:
DAVID MUIR: Across New York state today, they were lining up at the altar, the first day same-sex marriage became legal, a milestone in the gay rights movement, and apparently a money maker, too. Here's ABC’s T.J. Winnick.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: I now pronounce you legally married.
T.J. WINICK: It began at midnight when the law took effect in that classic wedding destination, Niagara Falls. Across New York state today, thousands of same-sex couples said, "I do."
UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: I'm glad that my parents are getting married.
WINICK: Robyn and Karin Cook are long-time partners and parents.
KARIN COOK: We’ve always felt married in our hearts, and that’s certainly the way our children experience our family.
WINICK: There are over 800 same-sex couples getting married in New York City alone today, and it’s projected 21,000 same-sex couples will tie the knot statewide over the next three years. It all means millions of dollars in state revenue at a time when New York needs it most. Gay marriage is expected to bring in $391 million to New York over the next three years. And if gay marriage was legalized nationwide, it’s estimated it would add $9.5 billion a year to the economy. Business is already booming at City Cakes in Manhattan.
MARC MATTHIAS, CITY CAKES CO-OWNER: We're anticipating probably about a 30 percent growth in our overall business.
WINICK: Along with the governor, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lobbied for same sex marriage. Bloomberg - a former Republican - says the party’s stance against same-sex marriage is at odds with the GOP philosophy of personal freedom.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: They want the government out of your personal life - government should not tell you who you can marry. And they think that marriage is a stabilizing influence on society and they value the sanctity of marriage.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: You may seal your vows with a kiss.
WINICK: New York is the biggest state yet to approve gay marriage, but 41 states still ban it. So, while the political battle is not over, today was a day for thousands to declare a very personal victory. T.J. Winick, ABC News, New York.
#From Good Morning America:
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: I do want to talk about one of the other issues you're going to be focusing on. That is gay marriage, the first gay weddings took place at midnight in New York state, and you’re going to be sitting down with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a proponent of gay marriage. You asked him about Michele Bachmann's past comments about homosexuality calling it, quote, "personal bondage, despair and enslavement," even comparing it to Satan. What did Mayor Bloomberg have to say about that?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, of course, I talked to him, and he is going to be marrying a pair of his aides. And I did ask them in that context, and he basically said this is a trend that's going to be growing, people's ideas on this issue are evolving around the country, and in the not too distant future, he predicted that people will turn around and say, well, what was all the fuss about? But in specific reference to what Michele Bachmann is quoted to have said in the past, this is his response:
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: The values that she espouses, that the Republican Party espouses are exactly the values that should be promoting this. They want the government out of your personal life, the government should not tell you who you can marry, and they think that marriage is a stabilizing influence on society, and they value the sanctity of marriage, and here are two people who want to get married.
AMANPOUR: So that was what he was saying, and also I asked was he worried and were the couple who he's marrying worried about a potential backlash, and they said, no, because they said look at the polls in the United States, look at young people, a majority of them have really evolved their views and are on board on this issue.
GOLODRYGA: And it's interesting, as a prominent businessman, he also thinks it will do a lot to help the bottom line in New York state, as well. We're looking forward to seeing the rest of the show.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What A Joke
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 7:38am.
The country is being bankrupted by socialists, plotted against by islamo-facists, is in three shooting wars (that we know of).
Yet four of the top five stories this morning on NB are about how the state should protect homosexuals from the pitfalls of marriage rather than staying out of people's (all people's) lives.
Great job on prioritization there NB, why not just send a damned check to the Obama re-election campaign?
NB's
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 7:49am.
Can only highlight what the media covers. And part of why NB's is covering it, is because they are spending so much time talking about it. So chill
Never has the media talked so
Submitted by kg on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 7:55am.
Never has the media talked so much about the yearns and desires of 1 1/2% of the population. It is so wide spread across the MSM it is almost as they have been ordered to do so. It is definitely a coordinated attack to sway public opinion.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Exactly the Point
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:28am.
They make it an issue because unlike the economy, the debt, the war, this one drives votes away from conservatives who dive into it like moths into a flame. Play along with them and you give them the election and the power, ignore them and you deny them the election and the power. Which is more important, the welfare of the country or controlling the marital lives of 1.5% of the population?
Who knew?
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 7:54am.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: They want the government out of your personal life - government should not tell you who you can marry.
So Bloomberg is on record as supporting bestiality and pedophilia?
I always turn the tables on the proponents just that way
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:45am.
Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. But I've engaged in at least several blog-fights over the years with the same-sex marriage proponents.
Their standard line: Government should not tell people who they can love an not love.
My reply: Government doesn't care who you love; it's not a requisite for getting a marriage license. But keeping your talking point alive, then government should not outlaw polygamy or incest, because it should not be in the business of telling people who they can and can't love.
Their usual response: But marriage is between two non-blood related people.
My reply: For millenia, marriage was understood to be between a man and a woman, but you said government can't narrowly define marriage that way. In redefining marriage to include same-sex, you're still excluding polygamy and incest, and that's bias if not biogtry.
At this point, I usually get called all kinds of expletives (One guy even suggested that I must be having sex with my 80 year-old mother), because they've lost the argument.
Now, I'm not advocating polygamy or incest, but it's interesting to see the tables turn when their logic makes them out to be the bigots.
I get the same reaction
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:48am.
When I insist that the 2nd ammendment provides for a private citizen to own a nuclear bomb and that the government is in violation of the constitution by not not allowing the sale of such material. Everyone just looks at me slack jawed..like I'm the lunatic in the room..when they know my logic has won.
Is a bomb a gun?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:05am.
Not to sure of your logic there. Maybe that's why you get the slack jawed looks.
2nd ammendment
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:15am.
Guaranties the right to bear arms..it doesn't specify what kind of arms.
You just contradicted yourself
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 10:37am.
"The right to keep and bear arms."
To my unschooled powers of reasoning, the term "bear" means to carry for use. While "bear" could mean assume, as in bear the responsibility, that doesn't seem how it's used in the Amendment. I believe the arms mentioned are those borne by warriors of the day. And as our militiamen were using a long rifle far superior to the British regulars, I think the "living document" folks should have no problem with citizens owning current automatic rifles.
Huh?
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 10:53am.
I contradicted myself? How so..Ok I'll back up a little from nuclear bombs..how about bazookas? That's ok right?
If facts are like kryptonite to liberals...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:00am.
... then logic must be like RED kryptonite!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
GOOD ONE!
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 12:23pm.
And why stop there Pedofiles, (NAMBLA) those that engage in Beastiality, necropheliaics, if you usee their logic love is love and you should be able to express it. What they counter is well those things aren't legitimate... my reply: and Gay marriage is...... WHY?... because YOU SAY SO?.....
Well if you think it through for half a second
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 2:38pm.
You'd realize you listed all criminal activities. Homosexuality isn't a crime.
Sluggo
Wrong
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 3:57pm.
It's not illegal to be attracted to children, animals or dead bodies. Depending on the state, it may be illegal to have sex with animals or dead bodies.....just like it was illegal for two guys to have sex, until relatively recently.
i think i get it now
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:22pm.
attraction is meaningless without the physical act. I don't care who you're attracted to as long as you're not performing a criminal act. "old jarhead" aint concerned with the emotion. IT's the physical act.
A gay couple can be married and never have sex.
Sluggo
Good evening SLUGGO
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:31pm.
When you enter eternity and you stand before Jesus, tell Him He was wrong about homosexuality being a crime. Then again, maybe you won't get the chance to say anything.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
buonasera
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:34pm.
but what did jesus say about necrophilia?
Sluggo
SLUGGO
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:36pm.
He won't appreciate your juvenile attempts at humor either.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
i'm serious
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 5:34pm.
If you're going to use the Bible's position on sodomy (a word that doesn't actually exist in the Bible) to define laws and morality, how can we possibly know right from wrong with a topic not breached?
Sluggo
Sluggo
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:42pm.
As it was pointed out by someone else two men commiting sodomy was a crime in most states untill the gay rights lobby got their way. I wasn't saying that those things were happening now I said take it to its logical end that all of that would be considered "OK" your concerned about the act only do you remember reading that if a man looks a woman with lust in his heart he has commited adultery? there was NO PHYSICAL ACT just a thought. Sluggo if you and your lover want to live the way you do I can't stop you all I can do it pray for you, as I pray for all sinners. (Including myself)
or what food you can eat...what car to drive
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:27am.
or...or...or...
Actually your religion should guide you on who to marry.
Just remember if this were not basically a Christian country, homosexuals would have no "rights". In Muslim countries there are no homosexuals.
I thought exactly the same way this weekend...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:06am.
...when I heard bloomberg say that. It's almost as a preposterous fallacy as one of our own leaders promoting this "idea" back when we had this debate said, and I quote: "Equal but different is not equal" --Jack Layton, Federal New Democratic Party Leader, Canada
It got traction!
I'm thinking of changing my by-line again to "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!" as a reference to an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, (Chain of Command - Part 2 - Season 6) when Picard got captured by the Cardasians (no, not Kim Cardasian -- if only) and was abused, tortured, and manipulated in every way, shape, and form by his Cardasian interrogator to break his spirit by forcing him to admit that he's actually seeing five lights, when in fact, there were only four.
The interrogator practically promised Picard a life of luxury, if he'd only admit to seeing five lights. Picard wouldn't budge, though, although it looked like he was beginning to bend. By the end of the episode, when it looked like he was about to lose all hope, he learned that he was being released. He then turned to his now former interrogator, and in triumphant victory, once more exclaimed that "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS" I think you can figure out the moral of the story here.
Thoughts?
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
You left out the part where
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:32am.
You left out the part where he got back on the Enterprise, and in a session with Troi, told her that for a second, he actually saw five lights.
But he knew in his very being that there were only four, and refused to succumb to the brainwashing, even when he knew it had succeeded.
To me, THAT was the true measure of the (granted, fictional) man!
Very true, Motherbelt.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:33am.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Brainwashing can convince you
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:37am.
Brainwashing can convince you that you see something, but that doesn't mean it really is there.
Brainwashing?
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:45am.
Does that really exist. Have there been any documented cases..or is it just some Hollywood myth?
Yes, brainwashing is real
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:02pm.
Where do you think democrats come from?
I knew you were going to say that!
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 6:15pm.
So not only is brainwashing real, but clairvoyance is as well.
The government should get out of your personal life...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:02am.
Then why are liberals going to force us to buy health insurance? Why are liberals trying to tell us what we can and cannot eat?
Bloomberg is also on record as supporting hypocrisy.
Liberals are capable of
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:39am.
Liberals are capable of deciding when the government should be involved in our lives for our own good!
Then it's OK. ;-)
$391 million?
Submitted by Franksam on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:08am.
This is how liberal economics works. If one state can attract money from all over America, then multiply that by 50 (or 57 if you prefer), and pretty soon the problems are solved.
After that, happy days are here again.
Voodoo economics
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:44am.
I heard Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) use similar math this morning on Morning Joe.
The topic was tax rates of the very rich, and they once again noted the Warren Buffet complains about paying only 14% in Federal income tax, and that's more than his secretary. (Most of Buffet's income is capital gains taxed at 15%)
Clyburn called for a closing of tax loopholes because it's not fair that Buffet pays 14% while his secretary pays 28%. Whoa! Wait a minute! What did he just slip past us?
If the secretary is in the 28% bracket, then he/she must be in the upper 5% of Americans in terms of income. That's a lot of income for a secretary, and if that's the case, isn't that what the Dems call a "fair share?"
So, where does Clyburn come up with this crazy number?
Well, he can't rule out that he might have pulled it out of his rectum.
Chances are he's including the secretary's FICA (Social Security) and Medicare contributions, which are not income tax. Those rates cap off at a certain level, so a rich guy like Buffet contributes relatively little to FICA and Medicare as a percentage of his income. (He'll also get very little in return.)
But Clyburn is dead wrong when he includes those payments and then claims the secretary pays Federal income tax at a rate of 28%. Of course, the lovable Mika Brzenzinski praised Clyburn's points as she paid to do.
We'll see more and more of the Dems' voodoo economics as the 2012 campaign heats up.
Not only that
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:21pm.
No one forces his secretary to work for a wage. She could choose to work for investment income, and be taxed at the same rate as Buffet. She chooses to take the safer route, and work for a wage.
Having said that, gee Clyburn, you think Buffet's secretary might be investing in the stock market too? I wonder if she'd like to pay a higher capital gains tax on those earnings?
Former Republican???
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:34am.
That's a hoot!
Bloomberg was never a Republican. He put his name on the Republican line because that's where there was an opening on the ballot. He never intended OR pretended to be one.
Is he now declaring himself to be "not" a Republican? I must have missed that.
Whatever.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. - A. Lincoln
You're absolutely correct, motherbelt
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:54am.
Bloomberg was a Democrat facing a tough primary battle against other Dems vying for the nomination for mayor to replace Giuliani. Since no significant Reps were running, Bloomberg 'changed parties' and entered the Republican race, and won the mayorship. Later he declared himself an independent.
But Bloomberg was always a limousine liberal, not unlike former NYC Mayor John Lindsay, who got elected as a Republican, later changed to Democrat, and then got re-elected. His liberal policies never changed, and NYC was the worse off for it.
Clyburn
Submitted by Curly on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 8:51am.
Every time he speaks, his ignorance spews forth. He, like most of the 535 Congressfolks is too STUPID to be there and too INEPT to do anything else.
Bloomberg the mayor that voted for
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:06am.
term limits against term limits for term limits and told 911 families that still wanted to search for the missing dead loved ones that he doesn't know why they're making such a fuss since he is going to be cremated.
Do you need to hear more from this piece of crap?
Looks like everyone got the memo this morning
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 9:16am.
Fight homosexuality and same sex marriage, GoOPers. Nothing like a little redundancy in subject matter.
Sluggo
Who is this moron?
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 11:32am.
Who is this moron?
Clyburn, or---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 5:16pm.
SLUGGO?
MD
Sure - the same way hookers
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 12:24pm.
Sure - the same way hookers and gambling are 'economic stimulus'.
I'm sure the perverts, whoremongers and liars running ABC think porn is economic stimulus, and crack.
Why can't they look for good things that create economic stimulus - like honest, hard work?
Gay marriage will be worth millions to NY
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:26pm.
Now if they could just get all those newly married homosexuals on unemployment, the state could triple its returns for every dollar it spends on it.