Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Will This Ad Anger Bauer?


This is the full-page ad the American Family Association of Indiana ran in the South Bend Tribune today questioning whether House Speaker Pat Bauer is a man of his word and accusing him of playing politics with SJR-7. How do you think Bauer will respond to this tactic? Click on the image to enlarge it.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ugh. He's so easy to dislike.

Proof that he has no loyalty to our community is his autumn 2006 surprise.

Proof that he has no common sense is that he listened to those, who think Democrats lost control of the House in 2004 because they blocked the Marriage Amendment.

Proof that he has no mirrors in his house is this picture. Yikes.

I hate to admit it, but hand it to the SJR7 proponents. This is slick work. Damn it.

Jay said...

He's probably going to throw GLBT Hoosiers udner the bus again.

Wilson46201 said...

Let's not forget that Republican Speaker-wannabee Brian Bosma is driving that damn bus!

kay said...

I doubt that anything SJR7 proponents pull out of their sorry ass bag of tricks can surprise or anger Bauer at this point. My guess, Bauer won't get mad but he will get even!

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that my grandmother used to make some comment about the relative merits of honey and vinegar.

Publishing an unflattering picture of someone in the local paper is probably NOT what Grandma had in mind as a good persuasion strategy.

kay said...

About those "... relative merits of honey and vinegar."

Some of the best salad dressings I ever had included a honey and vinegar mix. Tell grandma the trick is getting the right ratio ... that way dressing is enjoyed by all.

Chris Douglas said...

I take issue with any organizations that so casually split infinitives. They are contributing to the decline of proper English and, by extension, to the decline of the civilizations of the English-speaking world. Have they no shame?

(In my estimation, Bauer will likely honor his word to them and allow for a House vote... on an amended version of the amendment. It will be the conservative Republicans who will refuse to sanction an amended version going to referendum.)

kay said...

'The split infinitive has been present in English ever since the 14th century, but it was not until the 19th century that grammarians labeled and condemned the usage. The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the equivalent English construction should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and distinguished writers have split infinitives without giving it a thought. Noteworthy splitters include John Donne, Daniel Defoe, George Eliot, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, William Wordsworth, and Willa Cather. Still, those who dislike the construction can usually avoid it without difficulty. The sense of the sentence To better understand the miners' plight, he went to live in their district is just as easily expressed by To understand the miners' plight better, he went to live in their district. However, one must take care not to ruin the rhythm of the sentence or create an unintended meaning by displacing an adverb.·When choosing to retain split infinitives, one should be wary of constructions that have more than one word between to and the verb. The Usage Panel is evenly divided on the one-adverb split infinitive. Fifty percent accept it in the sentence The move allowed the company to legally pay the employees severance payments that in some cases exceeded $30,000. But only 23 percent of the panel accepts the split infinitive in the sentence We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden. In some contexts, the split infinitive is unavoidable, as in the sentence We expect our output to more than double in a year.·Excessive zeal in avoiding the split infinitive may result in an awkward placement of adverbs in constructions involving the auxiliary verbs be and have. Infinitive phrases in which the adverb precedes a participle, such as to be rapidly rising, to be clearly understood, and to have been ruefully mistaken, are not split and should be acceptable to everybody. By the same token, there are no grounds for objecting to the position of the adverb in the sentence He is committed to laboriously assembling all of the facts of the case. What is "split" here is not an infinitive but a prepositional phrase'

Hey, like you, I'm just sayin...

The Linguist-er said...

OK Chris and Kay:So where did this split infinitive debate come from? Simple resolution to it: "(a)Infinitives in Indiana shall be defined as only the unsplit variety; (b)This Constitution or any other Indiana law shall not be construed to require that infinitivity or the legal infidents thereof be bestowed on splits, be they individual or in groups."

Anonymous said...

Back to the thread topic: I hope to hell it does anger him. But frankly, I believe it mostly confirms his desire to get even. Did you see how he played with the governor's health care plan after Daniels criticized the Dem budget?

While I dislike Pat's hair (muskrat) and his bare-knuckles backroom politics, I am not ready to count him out in changing this amendment and creating a confusion.

kay said...

Linguist-er,

Fine, as long as he doesn't start going on and on about dangling participles, or some such ...

Chris Douglas said...

My point exactly, Kay. The so-called norms are only appropriate to the degree that they make sense in their contexts. When norms don't make sense, they should be adjusted appropriately. So let it be with the personal relationships of citizens.

I understand Senator Jeff Drozda one year introduced a bill that prohibited the dangling of participles in public. After he issued a release to the press, a reporter called him and explained the meaning of the word "participle." The bill was allowed to die quietly in committee.

kay said...

Thanks, Doughlas, that was fun!

kay said...

(Oops, sorry, I honestly meant to type Douglas.)

Anonymous said...

The last thing Bauer wants is every right-wing fundie coming out of the woodwork (churches)to cast a "single issue ballot" and then vote against the Dems on the ticket.
SJR7 will never make it out of the House because it is a political issue and not a religious one as the Repub leadership would have one believe.
Bauer's been around the block a few times and I seriously doubt that full pager did much to ruffle his hair.
SJR7 was DOA the minute it landed in Bauer's lap.
BTW, how's Bosma doing with that prayer lawsuit??

Anonymous said...

I certainly hope you're right, 6:48. But I've been around awhile, too, and I smell a rat. Several of them, actually.

Peter said...

1. I think 6:48 makes some good points - notwithstanding Bauer's stand on gay marriage, he really doesn't want to bring out the R. base in 2008. He can amend SJR-7 or he can kill it - but I think the chances of him letting it pass untouched are very small indeed.

2. The picture of Bauer is several years old; I don't think it's unflattering though. That's what Bauer looks like.

3. It's interesting how Bauer's statement that SJR-7 would be voted on is being morphed in the ad to suggest that he promised that the people would be able to vote on it. (Which is, incidentally, the clever strategy that the proponents have taken this year - "let the people vote.")