Are they ashamed?

[guitarbyte01@yahoo.com]

During the third Presidential debate, John Kerry mentioned that Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian. Afterward the Cheney's were upset that Kerry would say that. Lynn Cheney said "that is not a good man, it was a cheap and tawdy political trick. That is not a good man."

The Bush/ Cheney people are trying to make a big deal out of something that's really insignificant to distract from the real issues. If Senator Kerry hadn't said it, they would have found something else to criticize him about.

John Kerry later said "he was only trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with having gay family members." He also said "It was meant as a very constructive comment, in a positive way," he told CNN.

Asked how his comment was constructive, Kerry told CNN, "It's respectful of who she is. And they've embraced her and they love her. I have great respect for them for that. And it seems to me that was the point I was trying to make."

A couple of weeks ago, Senator John Edwards made a reference to Cheney's daughter being gay when answering a question during the vice- presidential debate, Cheney thanked him for the comment.

Dick Cheney during a campaign visit on August 25, 2004, admitted his daughter Mary is a lesbian. Cheney wasn't even asked a question about her. He was asked if he favored amending the Constitution to ban 'same-sex marriage' as Bush does. Cheney said he didn't favor an amendment, but supported the President's decision.

Instead of just answering the question he was asked, Cheney admitted for the first time publicly that Mary is a lesbian. Why he admitted that I don't know. Most people were already aware that his daughter is gay, and nobody really cared about that.

Kerry did nothing wrong by mentioning it. If the Cheney's didn't want anyone mentioning their daughters sexual preference then Dick Cheney shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

The only reason why the news media is even talking about this, is they love controversy. And they want to try and make a controversy out of something that's really insignificant. It's an outrageous shame that Dick Cheney has brought Mary embarassment in front of the nation.

[livius drusus]

As Scott Rosenberg points out in his blog, what the Republican operatives' outrage amounts to is: "what Kerry said about Mary Cheney is true. Yes, it is public. But for Kerry to spread that public fact to more voters is 'sleazy' because it highlights an instance where the administration is either divided or hypocritical or both."

Welcome to FF, guitarbyte01. Thank you for a fine first post and a great avatar choice.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by guitarbyte01@yahoo.com

The only reason why the news media is even talking about this, is they love controversy. And they want to try and make a controversy out of something that's really insignificant.

That's one reason. The other reason is they are too lazy to do real reporting and this kind of thing is easy to "report".

[Clutch Munny]

Well, the biggest reason is that it's an excuse to use the word "lesbian". Again and again. Lesbian! A lot.

And as Daily Show reporter Samantha Bee observed: Girl-on-girl penguin sex? That's hot!

[dave_a]

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon said something to the effect of "Thank goodness the debates are finally over and the news media can now start serving our needs and giving us the news" Then there was a 1-2 second segment from a bunch of news shows all talking about the Kerry lesbian comment.

It was pretty funny.

[Socratoad]

Its just one Toad's less than humble opinion, but methinks Kerry could have got the same massage across with just a tad more class, however the mock outrage by the Cheney's and fellow travellers not only was bad acting but also simply reeks of hypocrisy.

[livius drusus]

I agree, Toad. I kinda cringed when I heard him use her name - not because it was a secret or anything, but rather because it had a bit of a whiff of a reminder to Bush's homophobic constituents. Edwards' comment didn't give me that impression at all.

But yes, the outrage is misdirection and hypocrisy, pure and simple.

[Godless Dave]

Hey, if Bush and Cheney want to set themselves up as the "family values" candidates then it's all fair game as far as I'm considered. They can't have it both ways: if their families are none of the public's business, then the public's families are none of their business.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Hey, if Bush and Cheney want to set themselves up as the "family values" candidates then it's all fair game as far as I'm considered. They can't have it both ways: if their families are none of the public's business, then the public's families are none of their business.

"Fair game"! You saw it, he said "fair game"! You don't mean something nice if you say "fair game"!


10th through 5th paragraphs from bottom, for those who haven't heard this spin point ad nas already...

[Megatron]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Hey, if Bush and Cheney want to set themselves up as the "family values" candidates then it's all fair game as far as I'm considered. They can't have it both ways: if their families are none of the public's business, then the public's families are none of their business.

Absolutely. Even if it was an underhanded stab at the current administration, I don't see how it was dirty play, considering their (or at least Bush's) stance on this shit.

Makes good TV though...

(ok, I'm lying, I'm sick of watching this shit... )

[ApostateAbe]

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

When I heard Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter to argue his position about homosexuality, I cringed. It makes almost everyone cringe. It is one thing if her dad talked about it to clarify his position on the matter, but it is another thing if a political opponent brings it up as if to bolster his opposition to Bush and Cheney. If it is a debate, then the personal embarassments of your opponent's family should be off-limits, and Kerry, as an experienced debater, should have been keen on that.

on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

on the other hand

I think the

"how the fuck can you be opposed to civil liberties for a certain minority when your daughter is part of that minority"

is a very valid point.

Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.

[Godless Dave]

They fight dirty, we fight dirty. All the ridiculous slams on Kerry's wife came first.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

They fight dirty, we fight dirty. All the ridiculous slams on Kerry's wife came first.

Well, I expect the televised debates to be free from that sort of behavior, don't you?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.

I disagree, played properly, which it wasnt, the point was the hypocrisy of the republican "family fucking values and religious right"

Plus it could have made some bigoted fundies not vote for shrub which is a good thing.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I disagree, played properly, which it wasnt, the point was the hypocrisy of the republican "family fucking values and religious right"

Plus it could have made some bigoted fundies not vote for shrub which is a good thing.

Do you really think there is a way to play it right if you are going to bring in the sexual orientation of your opponent's running mate's daughter in a televised debate? I just can't imagine how that can come off right no matter how you say it.

[viscousmemories]

Given that the Bush team stands on a platform of supposed moral purity, pointing out hypocrisy in thier position seems like a perfectly valid strategy to me. I agree, though, that Kerry handled it poorly. In context it seemed more like namecalling than a reasonable criticism of their moral posturing.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, but there was numerous other valid points that Kerry could have chosen. Talking about your opponent's family to bolster your own position should not have been necessary. Nobody wants that.

I'm sorry...you're wrong... I want to know when a political candidate is being a fuckin' hypocrite, and that situation sizes it up succinctly. Bravo for Kerry.

godfry

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'm sorry...you're wrong... I want to know when a political candidate is being a fuckin' hypocrite, and that situation sizes it up succinctly. Bravo for Kerry.

godfry

I don't think Bush has been hypocritical on the gay issue though. I think he has been remarkably consistent. He has always said that gays are people with rights, but that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Bush has stated that civil unions are fine where same sex couples have rights pertaining to thier union.

One can argue that this isn't enough and that seperate but equal has never worked, but at the same time I don't see anything hypocritical about Bush's position.

Note to those who don't know: I will not be voting for Bush. I am not a Bush supporter. Please spare me the recitation of all Bush's evils.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by dantonac

I don't think Bush has been hypocritical on the gay issue though. I think he has been remarkably consistent. He has always said that gays are people with rights, but that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Bush has stated that civil unions are fine where same sex couples have rights pertaining to thier union.

One can argue that this isn't enough and that seperate but equal has never worked, but at the same time I don't see anything hypocritical about Bush's position.

Note to those who don't know: I will not be voting for Bush. I am not a Bush supporter. Please spare me the recitation of all Bush's evils.

Okay...

So what's all the posturing by the Republicans on a statement of fact?

Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, is she not?

Kerry stated that did he not?

As I understand it, Kerry pointed out a fact about the Republican position on marriage between member of the same gender and that policy's affect upon a single member of the Administration's family. Republican policy would deny the simple opportunity to establish a committed and legal long-term relationship with a member of the same gender for that Cheney daughter.

Right?

SO WHAT?

What is the big frikk'n deal about Kerry's pointing out a simple fact? The way Lynn Cheney is reacting, you'd think that Kerry had called her daughter a child molesting crack whore.



godfry

[ApostateAbe]

godfry, it really isn't a big deal, but I don't think it is anything that should be defended to the bitter end, either. When I argue politics with anyone, I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring--not only because it isn't directly relevant, but also because it shows low class and carelessness. If my sexual nature was being used as a political football in a national debate I didn't want any part of, it might very well piss me off.

Unfortunately, the biggest reason that Kerry isn't apologizing for this flub, I'm guessing, is that the apology would be used against him.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I don't talk about the embarassing characteristics of my opponent's offspring or my opponent's friend's offspring

interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

interestingly enough, I dont think that there is anything embarassing or shameful about being gay. the fact that you and the Cheneys and the republicans do is the problem.

If the girl was a crack whore and Kerry had mentioned it, you would have a point.

Exactamundo!

godfry

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Well, I expect the televised debates to be free from that sort of behavior, don't you?

Wish for? Yes. Expect? No. Bush lied outright at least once during that debate. The moral high ground loses elections.