[vmpaul]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
LOL! This is classic.

Obviously you missed the fact that Edward's wife is the one who already took the 'cheap shot' at Cheney's daughter. Now here you are whining about a HYPOTHETICAL of the opposite!

Too funny! Spacefreak's point= proven.

So, you're equating obesity, a national health problem, with homosexuality?

You see no difference then exploiting a person's health status, and which could be a potentially serious medical condition, with a someone else's sexuality?

No, I guess you wouldn't.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Since when?

Well the quick rehash for you:

Kerry used the Cheney's daughter -even putting words in her mouth, with the "I think she would tell you..." bullcrap. Kerry is in no position to say what Mary Cheney would tell anyone, and no right to bring her up.

By the way Edwards mentioning Mary Cheney in the VP debate didn't cause any outrage, because (for anyone who isn't swift enough to figure it out) he was speaking TO Dick Cheney, who then had a chance to respond. But bringing up the VP's daughter, and putting words in her mouth when neither she nor either parent is there to respond, is just cheap- as Kerry has continuously proved he is.

Lynn Cheney's rightfully responded that Kerry is "not a good man" to use her daughter in "a cheap and tawdry political trick" which it was.

Elizabeth Edwards then butts in totally out of left field saying that Lynn Cheney must be ashamed of her daughter (!!??!) Again, using Mary Cheney as a cheap political ploy, rather than keeping her fat yap out of it, or Kerry apologizing.

So I say by these same low standards as Dems are putting forth here, it'd be fair play if Bush or Cheney DID take a shot calling out Elizabeth Edwards' weight problem as a health issue then, as per Spacefreak's example. How is it she isn't fair game when Mary Cheney is? Mary Cheney, as far as I know, hasn't said a THING publicly about any of this. She's not running for any office that I'm aware of, nor the spouse of anyone who is.

Personally, I don't find this sort of behavior all that surprising from Democrats- it's what Democrats (and politicians in general) do. And during an election year, shameless people like the Kerrys and Edwards will obviously do and say virtually ANYTHING to win.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The fact is, also, it wasn't inadvertant. You could argue that Edwards did it once accidentally. But for Kerry to do it again, just shows the guy is a boor.

I've heard this a few times, that Edwards brought it up. But he didn't, the debate moderator brought up the fact that Cheney himself had brought it up in a campaign stop. Here's the full question that Gwen Ifill asked in the vice-presidential debate:

IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

Edwards mentioned Cheneys daughter directly, but he was commenting on the fact that Ifill was referring to Cheney's own comments. Edwards was talking about it third hand, in effect. And Cheney thanked him profusely:

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

And Edwards' comment was from the previous question. Not only did Cheney not show any outrage, but he also didn't have to thank him at all, because they were on to a new question. I think it's pretty clear that he meant his thanks. I dunno, maybe Kerry and Edwards had kind of planned it as a strategy to depress the religious conservative Republican turnout. I wouldn't put it past them. But I just doubt that's what happened. I think it spontaneously came up in the veep debate and then Kerry was thinking of his response as a kind of continuation of that, very positive, exchange between Edwards and Cheney.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
So, you're equating obesity, a national health problem, with homosexuality?

You see no difference then exploiting a person's health status, and which could be a potentially serious medical condition, with a someone else's sexuality?

No, I guess you wouldn't.

Thanks for proving the point even further! Exploiting a person's health status= HYPOTHETICAL example! It DIDN'T HAPPEN. Yet here you are getting outraged over it!

Exploiting a person's sexuality= EXACTLY what Kerry did.

It doesn't matter which explotation is worse- only one of them was actually pulled off by Kerry!

Talk about someone who can't see the difference between something. Now go back to your outrage over a HYPOTHETICAL example!

[icruise]

So where did Edward's wife attack Cheney's daughter again?

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like Sullivan, I am not particularly outraged that mary Cheney's sexuality itself was brought up, although I am a little more inclined to find Kerry's insistance on doing so a little tacky. It isn't as though Mary herself made her sexuality and relationship between it and her father's politics an issue. For example, in the way that Candice Gingrich does with respect to her brother Newt. However, I'm not especially outraged about "outing" her here because as far as I know, she is out.

I agree entirely.

However, I'm not sure that the sexuality reason is why so many people winced. Across party lines, a lot of people do think it is inappropriate to try to use a candidate's child as a weapon against the parent, whatever the issue. I think a lot of people would also be outraged if the issue were underage drinking and Kerry dragged the Bush twins in.

OTOH, I disagree here. If they were talking about underage drinking as a 'problem' and in that context brought up the Bush twins, that would be inappropriate. But Kerry believes homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable state of being, and so I don't see how bringing up Mary Cheney in that respect is inappropriate, especially because Cheney has talked about her himself throughout the campaign.

Crash and Spacefreak are going off on a tangent by bringing up obesity. Obesity is a health problem, and in that respect it's a totally different issue from homosexuality.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
But Kerry believes homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable state of being, and so I don't see how bringing up Mary Cheney in that respect is inappropriate, especially because Cheney has talked about her himself throughout the campaign.

Oh stop the pretense. The issue is that Kerry was using Mary Cheney as a cheap political ploy, and that it's crass to use someone's family member in that sense.

The obesity example has nothing to do with the smoke screen you and others are trying to float, that compares obesity with homosexuality- and what's more, you know it full well. It's an example of how it would have been a cheap ploy for Bush to have used Edwards's family member as the same kind of cheap ploy that Kerry pulled on the Cheney's. It's made a further good example, by the fact that Elizabeth Edwards HAS interjected herself into the matter, by opening her fat yap and FURHTER exploiting Mary Cheney's sexuality as a political ploy. For once, deal with the facts, and stop trying to smokescreen them.

[itai195]

What's the cheap ploy??? Everyone already knew Mary Cheney is a lesbian, so where's the ploy?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Thanks for proving the point even further! Exploiting a person's health status= HYPOTHETICAL example! It DIDN'T HAPPEN. Yet here you are getting outraged over it!

Exploiting a person's sexuality= EXACTLY what Kerry did.

It doesn't matter which explotation is worse- only one of them was actually pulled off by Kerry!

Talk about someone who can't see the difference between something. Now go back to your outrage over a HYPOTHETICAL example!

WTF? I didn't say it happened. YOU (and spacefreak) are the ones SUGGESTING that it should be, or should have been done. Damn straight I think that's outrageous.

You're suggesting Bush and/or Cheney make a political comment about someone's health status and obesity, which is widely considered to be a medically serious condition.

vs.

Mentioning someone's sexuality. Which is ONLY shameful if you happened to think homosexuality is wrong.

Thanks for making your viewpoint obvious.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
What's the cheap ploy??? Everyone already knew Mary Cheney is a lesbian, so where's the ploy?

First of all, the question asked of the candidates was along the lines: "Do YOU believe homosexuality is something you are from birth."

Notice it was asked what John Kerry believed. Kerry NEVER GAVE an actual answer- he pulled a cheap trick of putting words into Mary Cheney's mouth about what he 'thinks' she believes. It�s a cheap shot because it�s nothing that�s any of Kerry�s business- Mary Cheney�s sexual preferences have nothing to do with the question that was asked of KERRY, not her.

But then, not answering a question and then putting words into someone else�s mouth is TYPICAL of 'playing both sides of the fence' Democrats.

And in case there was any doubt that the whole thing wasn't designed from the start as a cheap shot at the Cheney's, Elizabeth Edwards came along with her blather and erased ANY doubt of what the real intent was- something the Democrat spinmeisters have YET to deal with I notice.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
But then, not answering a question and then putting words into someone else�s mouth is TYPICAL of 'playing both sides of the fence' Democrats.

What are you going on about? He answered the question!

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

The man on stage who did not answer the question was George W. Bush, who simply said he doesn't know (how's that for a strong position) and then went on to talk about gay marriage, which the question wasn't about.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
WTF? I didn't say it happened. YOU (and spacefreak) are the ones SUGGESTING that it should be, or should have been done. Damn straight I think that's outrageous.

LOL! Further comedy! You're on a roll today!

You think a hypothetical is outrageous, yet what Kerry actually pulled isn't! As I said before: Classic.

You're suggesting Bush and/or Cheney make a political comment about someone's health status and obesity, which is widely considered to be a medically serious condition.

By the standards of what Democrats are floating her as fair play. By the way, I forgot that the left thinks obesity is off limits to lampoon. *cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*. Even your smokescreen doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Mentioning someone's sexuality. Which is ONLY shameful if you happened to think homosexuality is wrong.

So far, only John Edwards's wife has made the comment that there's anything to be ashamed about in her uncalled for accusation against Lynn Cheney. Again, your smoke and mirrors are destroyed by the actions of your own side!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like Sullivan, I am not particularly outraged that mary Cheney's sexuality itself was brought up, although I am a little more inclined to find Kerry's insistance on doing so a little tacky. It isn't as though Mary herself made her sexuality and relationship between it and her father's politics an issue. For example, in the way that Candice Gingrich does with respect to her brother Newt. However, I'm not especially outraged about "outing" her here because as far as I know, she is out.

However, I'm not sure that the sexuality reason is why so many people winced. Across party lines, a lot of people do think it is inappropriate to try to use a candidate's child as a weapon against the parent, whatever the issue. I think a lot of people would also be outraged if the issue were underage drinking and Kerry dragged the Bush twins in.

Kerry wasn't insistent on bringing up Mary Cheney's sexuality. He was asked a direct question on homosexuality. He responded.

Again, it isn't a weapon if there's no shame in it. Just as there was no shame when Kerry mentioned how much he respected Bush as a father to his daughters. Was that exploitative? Where's the outrage? There was no outrage because most people see that as the norm. The fact that they don't recognize it as a discriminatory reaction doesn't surprise me.

Lynne or Dick Cheney showed no outrage when when Edwards complimented them. They showed no outrage when a member OF THEIR OWN PARTY and a candidate for the US Senate called their daughter a 'hedonist'. They wait to attack the head of the opposing ticket. Now, that makes them either hypocrites or political opportunists. Or both.

And by the way, I also wish he would stop suggesting that Bush is going to revive the draft. He knows that's not true. He's just trying to scare kids into voting for him. But while he is scaring them he is also undermining the military by suggesting that serving is something that young people should be scared of and try to avoid. A serious candidate for commander in chief would be encouraging kids to serve their country in a time of war, not trying to scare them with the prospect of a nonexistent draft.

OT, but I wish Bush would quit distorting Kerry's record as well. That's what our political system has become, unfortunately. We can save this for another thread but it's obvious that if Bush's strategy for the WoT is mainly to invade and occupy(a la Iraq), then he's not going to have much choice but to revive the draft. That's the logical consequence of his policies. Nobody seems to be explaining the setup to their conclusion.

[tie]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
First of all, the question asked of the candidates was along the lines: "Do YOU believe homosexuality is something you are from birth."
...
And in case there was any doubt that the whole thing wasn't designed from the start as a cheap shot at the Cheney's, Elizabeth Edwards came along with her blather and erased ANY doubt of what the real intent was- something the Democrat spinmeisters have YET to deal with I notice.

I don't know what Kerry's intention was. Perhaps there was something underhanded. If so, it is more likely to point out how hypocritical Bush was in not supporting gay rights when his own running mate's daughter is gay. Instead of, rednecks should vote for me because the other guy's daughter is gay. Is that what you think his intention was?

I don't see how you can conclude it was a cheap shot based on Elizabeth Edwards. One could just as easily conclude Cheney's different reaction after the second debate was a cheap shot.

I think it is stupid that something like this is dominating discussion when there are serious issues.

[itai195]

Originally posted by tie:
I think it is stupid that something like this is dominating discussion when there are serious issues.

Welcome to election 2004.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
What are you going on about? He answered the question!

Can you follow ANYTHING?

...Kerry referred to Mary Cheney when asked by moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News whether homosexuality is a choice.

I don't have the actual question, but you can look it up. Kerry was asked if HE thought homosexuality was a choice. That's HIMSELF. John Kerry. What do YOU (John Kerry) think. Can you follow, or is it too much info for you?

"We're all God's children," Kerry said. "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian...

Huh? The question wasn't asked of Dick Cheney's daughter doofus, nor 'What do you THINK Dick Cheney's daugher thinks' the question was asked of YOU!

she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

So he skirted by what he 'thinks' Mary Cheney would answer, and what he 'thinks' "anybody" would answer- everything BUT what John Kerry actually thinks. This is the kind of crap you get from idiots like Kerry who won't answer what they think, because he hasn't checked a poll yet on what he should think on the matter!

George W. Bush, who simply said he doesn't know (how's that for a strong position)

And GW Bush was the only one to answer what HE actually thinks- in other words, the only one who answered the actual question.

[Anders]

I just want to say that BRussells posts here at macnn are some of the most well thought on the internet(s)

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well the quick rehash for you:



Personally, I don't find this sort of behavior all that surprising from Democrats- it's what Democrats (and politicians in general) do. And during an election year, shameless people like the Kerrys and Edwards will obviously do and say virtually ANYTHING to win.

Another one with Selective outrage.

[icruise]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
And GW Bush was the only one to answer what HE actually thinks- in other words, the only one who answered the actual question.

Yeah, with an "I don't know."

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by tie:

I think it is stupid that something like this is dominating discussion when there are serious issues.

That's the Republican's plan. As I said before, did they complain when Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney? No. Were they 'outraged' when a MEMBER OF THIER OWN PARTY called their daughter a 'selfish hedonist'? No. But here's an opportunity to slam the head of the opposing ticket and avoid (yet again) to discuss the Presidents record and Iraq.

Everybody does it. The Democrats are just not very good at cutthroat campaigning.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Can you follow ANYTHING?


I don't have the actual question, but you can look it up. Kerry was asked if HE thought homosexuality was a choice. That's HIMSELF. John Kerry. What do YOU (John Kerry) think. Can you follow, or is it too much info for you?

I just quoted directly from the transcript above AND I actually watched the debate. It's clear from his answer that he thinks it's not a choice, and that he personally takes the issue seriously. Are you unable to distinguish between a position and the evidence used to support that position (eg if you talk to any homosexual person they'll tell you it's not a choice)?

Your partisanship is blinding you here, Crash. You attack Kerry for basing his position on what he's heard from others, and then claim Bush answered the question. Since when is 'I don't know' an acceptable answer, especially from a man who has taken strong positions regarding homosexuality during his term? I freely admit that bringing up Mary Cheney was tacky, but I don't think it was inappropriate to do so. She and her family are completely open about her sexuality, so I honestly don't see the problem.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by tie:
I don't know what Kerry's intention was. Perhaps there was something underhanded. If so, it is more likely to point out how hypocritical Bush was in not supporting gay rights when his own running mate's daughter is gay. Instead of, rednecks should vote for me because the other guy's daughter is gay. Is that what you think his intention was?

I personally think he was avoiding answering the ACTUAL question. The question wasn't "Do you think Mary Cheney thinks homosexuality is a choice?" The question was what Kerry's own beliefs are.

Kerry knows that he needs the votes of people who may happen to strongly disagree with either position he could take (choice, or gay from birth)- so he took the coward's way out and interjected a bunch of "Well I think everyone else would say..." crap into the question as a convienient side-step to actually taking a stand on his own beliefs.

As I said, I think it's typical of people like Kerry- he has no core beliefs that don't shift dramatically based on who he is talking to, or which way he feels the poll 'winds' are blowing.

I don't see how you can conclude it was a cheap shot based on Elizabeth Edwards. One could just as easily conclude Cheney's different reaction after the second debate was a cheap shot.

The point stands, Elizabeth Edwards is the only one who made any connection between being ashamed and homosexuality. I think the whole thing was a calculated ploy to try and make that point (against the Cheney's) and it rightfully has backfired on the Democrats.

I think it is stupid that something like this is dominating discussion when there are serious issues.

I agree, but I think it's stupid that Kerry couldn't have just answered "Well I believe x..." and left someone else's daughter out of it.

[icruise]

Do you really want to get into a discussion of who avoided the most questions during the debate? Anyway, it was obvious to me that Kerry was saying that it is not a choice.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
[B]I just quoted directly from the transcript above AND I actually watched the debate. It's clear from his answer that he thinks it's not a choice, and that he personally takes the issue seriously.

Show me where Kerry says what he actually thinks.

Are you unable to distinguish between a position and the evidence used to support that position (eg if you talk to any homosexual person they'll tell you it's not a choice)?

How is saying how he 'thinks' Mary Cheney would answer a question asked not of her, but of HIM, 'evidence'?

Your partisanship is blinding you here, Crash. You attack Kerry for basing his position on what he's heard from others,

LOL! Prove that Kerry has EVER spoken to Mary Cheney about her views on homosexuality, and it being a choice or not. That's a good one! I'll wait...

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
LOL! Further comedy! You're on a roll today!

You think a hypothetical is outrageous, yet what Kerry actually pulled isn't! As I said before: Classic.

No. I'm saying what YOU suggested is outrageous. It wasn't a hypothetical, you (and spacefreak) suggested it.

your quote:

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
...it'd be fair play if Bush or Cheney DID take a shot calling out Elizabeth Edwards' weight problem as a health issue then, as per Spacefreak's example.

Are you retracting now?

By the standards of what Democrats are floating her as fair play. By the way, I forgot that the left thinks obesity is off limits to lampoon. *cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*. Even your smokescreen doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

By ANYONE's standards, making comments about a person health status, and one which could be potentially a serious medical condition, is low. Well, I guess not by YOUR standards. We've seen those. I geuss we should be careful or we'll trip over them.

So far, only John Edwards's wife has made the comment that there's anything to be ashamed about in her uncalled for accusation against Lynn Cheney. Again, your smoke and mirrors are destroyed by the actions of your own side!

Edwards wife said (paraphrased) that if Lynne Cheney is upset about the subject of her daughter's homosexuality being brought up then she must be ashamed of it. That's how I read it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
LOL! Prove that Kerry has EVER spoken to Mary Cheney about her views on homosexuality, and it being a choice or not. That's a good one! I'll wait...

Kerry: I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice.

Or to put it another way, have you ever talked to a homosexual person who thought it was a choice?

But if the best argument you can put forward now is that Kerry put words in Mary Cheney's mouth, okay, point to you. I still don't see how that makes it inappropriate to mention her sexuality. You mentioned several times in a post that bringing up Mary Cheney was a cheap political ploy, but you didn't answer why you thought so.

Frankly, I'm not surprised by Lynne Cheney or Elizabeth Edwards' comments. Lynne has a track record of behaving this way, as she did even in the 2000 campaign, when her daughter was already very much out of the closet and open about her sexuality:

From Salon:
On Sunday, when ABC's Cokie Roberts started to ask the GOP vice presidential nominee's wife about having a daughter who has "declared she's openly gay," an irate Lynne Cheney shot back: "Mary has never declared such a thing." Cheney then blasted the media for its interest in the story, and chided Roberts: "I'm surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Kerry wasn't insistent on bringing up Mary Cheney's sexuality. He was asked a direct question on homosexuality. He responded.

Yes, he responded to a direct question on homosexuality by gratuitously referencing Cheney's daughter. And by sheer coincidence, his example is the same individual homosexual that his running mate used a week ago.

What, are we to think that the only lesbian Kerry knows is Mary Cheney?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
Or to put it another way, have you ever talked to a homosexual person who thought it was a choice?

But if the best argument you can put forward now is that Kerry put words in Mary Cheney's mouth, okay, point to you. I still don't see how that makes it inappropriate to mention her sexuality. You mentioned several times in a post that bringing up Mary Cheney was a cheap political ploy, but you didn't answer why you thought so.

You answered it yourself, you just didn't realize it. It was a cheap political ploy to put words in Mary Cheney's mouth, and to exploit someone else's family member for poltical gain.

Frankly, I'm not surprised by Lynne Cheney or Elizabeth Edwards' comments. Lynne has a track record of behaving this way, as she did even in the 2000 campaign, when her daughter was already very much out of the closet and open about her sexuality:

Has anyone actually proven Lynne Cheney wrong on this? When exactly did Mary Cheney "delcare herself openly gay" before this? Her being gay, and her having 'declared' it as the world's business are two completely different things that it figures the PC left would never be able to fathom. Please cite an instance of Mary Cheney openly declaring herself gay to the world before this interview. Maybe it happened, but then again, maybe it didn't and Lynne is right.

Any Lynne Cheney is right- why is it any of the media's business anyway? It's the media that's made being gay such an issue to point out, not Lynne Cheney.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
"Kerry: I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice."

Or to put it another way, have you ever talked to a homosexual person who thought it was a choice?

So Kerry 'thinks' that if you talk to 'anybody' that it's not a choice.
There's no need for you to 'put it another way' in order to skirt Kerry's dodge for him. There's not a thing in that sentence that says what Kerry himself actually thinks, and certainly not with any conviction. It'd be a typical lame dodge that could easily be overlooked, had his only example that he did claim, not been someone whom he's never spoken to, purporting to know what she would say.

As has been said before, he could have gotten away with the dodge by citing someone else, and preferably someone whose position he actually knows, but he saw it as the way to bring the 'planned' mention of Mary Cheney into this.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You answered it yourself, you just didn't realize it. It was a cheap political ploy to put words in Mary Cheney's mouth, and to exploit someone else's family member for poltical gain.

And like I said, I think it was tacky to bring her up. But I disagree that it was exploitation.

Any Lynee Cheney is right- why is it any of the media's business anyway? It's the media that's made being gay such an issue to point out, not Lynne Cheney.

Give me a break, Dick Cheney has mentioned his daughter's homosexuality frequently during this campaign. He even spoke about it in a Human Rights Campaign ad, for Christ's sake! The issue is out in the open, and the only person who seems ashamed to talk about it is Lynne Cheney.

[icruise]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

Has anyone actually proven Lynne Cheney wrong on this? When exactly did Mary Cheney "delcare herself openly gay" before this? Her being gay, and her having 'declared' it as the world's business are two completely different things that it figures the PC left would never be able to fathom. Please cite an instance of Mary Cheney openly declaring herself gay to the world before this interview. Maybe it happened, but then again, maybe it didn't and Lynne is right.

There are a lot of hits you can get if you bothered to do a search, but here's one:

Before her father became vice president, Mary Cheney lived an openly gay lifestyle in Colorado with her life partner and worked as Coors' liaison with the gay community.

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/s...,7633199.story

I hardly think that someone whose job it was to be a liaison with the gay community is trying to keep it a secret.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
Give me a break, Dick Cheney has mentioned his daughter's homosexuality frequently during this campaign. He even spoke about it in a Human Rights Campaign ad, for Christ's sake! The issue is out in the open, and the only person who seems ashamed to talk about it is Lynne Cheney.

So in other words you can't prove her wrong? When did Mary Cheney annouce she was openly gay before that interview where Cokie Roberts insists she did?

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So in other words you can't prove her wrong? When did Mary Cheney annouce she was openly gay before that interview where Cokie Roberts insists she did?

She was Coors' liason to the gay community, for one example. Do some research. If she wasn't open about it, she probably would have asked her father to stop mentioning it, too.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, he responded to a direct question on homosexuality by gratuitously referencing Cheney's daughter. And by sheer coincidence, his example is the same individual homosexual that his running mate used a week ago.

What, are we to think that the only lesbian Kerry knows is Mary Cheney?

Again, you're making assumptions that I don't accept. What is wrong with mentioning someone's daughter? Kerry mentioned Bush's daughters in the next question about family. Was that gratuitous? Where's the outrage? There is none. Kerry could've just as easily mentioned Dick and Julie Nixon. Or whoever, it doesn't matter. It's only exploitative if you think there's something there to exploit.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Again, you're making assumptions that I don't accept. What is wrong with mentioning someone's daughter? Kerry mentioned Bush's daughters in the next question about family. Was that gratuitous? Where's the outrage? There is none. Kerry could've just as easily mentioned Dick and Julie Nixon. Or whoever, it doesn't matter. It's only exploitative if you think there's something there to exploit.

I also don't buy the sanctimony, especially when GOP spinsters are out there responding to this by pointing out that Kerry could have invoked any other gay person, specifically a list of Democratic politicians' gay relatives.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Has anyone actually proven Lynne Cheney wrong on this? When exactly did Mary Cheney "delcare herself openly gay" before this? Her being gay, and her having 'declared' it as the world's business are two completely different things that it figures the PC left would never be able to fathom. Please cite an instance of Mary Cheney openly declaring herself gay to the world before this interview. Maybe it happened, but then again, maybe it didn't and Lynne is right.

Do you know what her job was before she worked on her father's campaign (hint: it involved the fact that she was openly gay)? Did you know that Dick Cheney announced it in Iowa a few weeks ago, for anyone who still didn't know?

Any Lynne Cheney is right- why is it any of the media's business anyway? It's the media that's made being gay such an issue to point out, not Lynne Cheney.

Please. Lynne has intentionally decided to make this an issue. They've been going out into the media trying to get this issue covered. The media wouldn't have talked about this at all unless she had made comments about how "Kerry is a bad, bad man" herself. It's transparently obvious that they're using this to try to hurt Kerry. Whether he deserves it or not is for everyone to decide for themselves, but there's no question that they're intentionally trying to use this in the campaign.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I hardly think that someone whose job it was to be a liaison with the gay community is trying to keep it a secret.

Well, there was the time she didn't appear on stage with her family at the Republican National Convention. But I'm sure that had nothing to do with her corrupt, perverse, and unnatural preference for women, or the Party's position regarding same. :coughcough:

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So Kerry 'thinks' that if you talk to 'anybody' that it's not a choice.
There's no need for you to 'put it another way' in order to skirt Kerry's dodge for him.

Wow, you are really far gone, aren't you. Kerry's asked if people are gay by choice. He says, in effect, when you ask gay people, they say no. That's not avoiding the question in the slightest. That's the best answer to the question. It's the same answer an expert in the field of human sexuality would give, that the best way to answer that question is to ask the people themselves, and when you do ask them, they invariably say no. But I wouldn't want you to stray from the BC04 talking points.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Anders:
I just want to say that BRussells posts here at macnn are some of the most well thought on the internet(s)

Wow, thanks Andy.

You know actually at first I thought it was a really great compliment, but then I realized that the standards aren't very high.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Point taken about Mary being 'openly gay' but it still seems to me that she merely lived her life, which Democrats take to mean 'openly annouce' as in it's a public issue and fair game to use as a political ploy. I personally think the left in general makes too much of an issue of people's sexual peference, and uses such for cheap political ploys- and Mary Cheney is a classic example.

It's also another issue, where when they are called out for doing it, they can merely fall back on calling the other side 'homophobes'. Just another typical play from the Democrat handbook, alongside the tried and true 'race' card.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Wow, you are really far gone, aren't you. Kerry's asked if people are gay by choice. He says, in effect, when you ask gay people, they say no.

That's not AT ALL what he said! Your 'in effect' bullcrap is just giving him an out. He didn't say if you ask gay people, he said if you ask Mary Cheney (whom as far as anyone knows, he hasn't) and then he cited 'anyone'.

What he never said what JOHN KERRY actually thinks, which he WAS being asked.

We now know what John Kerry will say if asked this question- he'll dodge and spout a bunch of crap about what he thinks others will say.

It's the typical politician playing it safe, and not having an actual core belief of his own that he's willing to stand up for, but what's funny is you blatantly partisan Dems trying to say its other than that.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Point taken about Mary being 'openly gay' but it still seems to me that she merely lived her life, which Democrats take to mean 'openly annouce' as in it's a public issue and fair game to use as a political ploy. I personally think the left in general makes too much of an issue of people's sexual peference, and uses such for cheap political ploys- and Mary Cheney is a classic example.

Funny how you didn't respond the same way when the right made such a big issue of Kerry's military service. Besides, are you in touch with reality here? If anything, both parties are equally guilty of using homosexuality as a wedge issue for years. But at least the left seems to have come to the realization that homosexuals should have no reason not to be open about their sexuality. Your post implies that homosexuals sometimes choose to remain very private regarding their sexuality, but personally I haven't found that to jibe with reality, especially when we're talking about a woman whose own father has made a public issue out of her sexuality.

It's the typical politician playing it safe, and not having an actual core belief of his own that he's willing to stand up for, but what's funny is you blatantly partisan Dems trying to say its other than that.

I disagree, I think it was a perfectly legitimate response. He thinks it's not a choice because every gay person he's asked says it's not a choice. How else is he supposed to know, considering he isn't gay himself. Anyway, if you want to lambast him for not answering the question, feel free. That isn't the topic of discussion. If I were you, I'd call part of your post a smokescreen

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I personally think the left in general makes too much of an issue of people's sexual peference, and uses such for cheap political ploys- and Mary Cheney is a classic example.

The LEFT DOES? The President of the United States is trying to AMEND the CONSTITUTION to deny rights based on sexuality. And you're saying the LEFT makes too much of the issue? Oh man.

BRussell, is right. You are really far gone.

[vmpaul]

Again, more incisive commentary from Andrew Sullivan:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "The Republican leaderships in both houses of Congress brought this amendment to the floor. Anyone watching the debate would cringe at the dehumanizing and painful things said by Republican sponsors of the proposal about gay people.
All of the Cheneys have sat back as senators and members of Congress who stood up for their position against the constitutional amendment were attacked in campaigns across the country. In Texas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina and elsewhere, Republican candidates are using the gay issue against Democrats who have done nothing more than vote to protect the notion of fairness and equality in our Constitution.
Where is the outrage of Dick and Lynne Cheney over this?" - Hilary Rosen, in the Washington Post today.

The Cheneys didn't respond to Jim DeMint's gay-baiting in South Carolina, or Alan Keyes' direct insult of their own daughter in Illinois. They have not voiced objections tio a single right-wing piece of homophobia in this campaign or the anti-gay RNC flier in Arkansas and West Virginia. But they are outraged that Kerry mentioned the simple fact of their daughter's openly gay identity. What complete b.s. In the short run, this hurts Kerry. Prevailing disapproval of homosexuality means that most people regard mentioning anybody's lesbianism as an insult and inappropriate. But long-term, the Republican bluff has been called. The GOP is run, in part, by gay men and women, its families are full of gay people, and yet it is institutionally opposed to even the most basic protections for gay couples. You can keep up a policy based on rank hypocrisy for only so long. And then it tumbles like a house of cards. Kerry just pulled one card from out of the bottom of the heap. Watch the edifice of double standards slowly implode. Gay people and their supporters will no longer acquiesce in this charade. Why on earth should we?

(sidenote - I can't believe I'm quoting something from Hilary Rosen. When she worked for the RIAA, I thought she was the devil incarnate.)

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I personally think the left in general makes too much of an issue of people's sexual peference, and uses such for cheap political ploys- and Mary Cheney is a classic example.

It's also another issue, where when they are called out for doing it, they can merely fall back on calling the other side 'homophobes'. Just another typical play from the Democrat handbook, alongside the tried and true 'race' card.




That's not AT ALL what he said! Your 'in effect' bullcrap is just giving him an out. He didn't say if you ask gay people, he said if you ask Mary Cheney (whom as far as anyone knows, he hasn't) and then he cited 'anyone'.

What he never said what JOHN KERRY actually thinks, which he WAS being asked.

We now know what John Kerry will say if asked this question- he'll dodge and spout a bunch of crap about what he thinks others will say.

It's the typical politician playing it safe, and not having an actual core belief of his own that he's willing to stand up for, but what's funny is you blatantly partisan Dems trying to say its other than that.

You've obviously, and perhaps conveniently, forgotten about this Republican's attack on Mary Cheney, but, that doesn't surprise me. Yup, it's them Democrats that are making an example of Mary Cheney, all right.



BTW, I wonder if this is part of the Republican's "family value" agenda? What do you think?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Obesity is objectively a bad thing, it's unhealthy. Only if you think homosexuality is likewise a bad thing does your analogy hold up.

Nice try, but no dice.

My example had to do with targeting what could be conceived as a negative about a family member of the opposition and working it into an answer on a particular issue.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Again, you're making assumptions that I don't accept. What is wrong with mentioning someone's daughter? Kerry mentioned Bush's daughters in the next question about family. Was that gratuitous? Where's the outrage? There is none. Kerry could've just as easily mentioned Dick and Julie Nixon. Or whoever, it doesn't matter. It's only exploitative if you think there's something there to exploit.

Apparently, 64% of people polled think it does matter.

Face it, the Kerry campaign chose that one individual person to use as their poster child very deliberately -- and it is backfiring. Instead of arguing with the electorate and telling them they are wrong, the campaign would be better to just make a quick apology, say it was all a misunderstanding and move on.

After all, it isn't as though it was essential to Kerry's argument to use that particular example. They could have picked anyone, and it would have made the point just as well. But they didn't. Instead, they decided in Mary Beth Cahill's words that Mary Cheney was "fair game." That's as politically tone deaf as you can be.

Edit: From ABC's The Note (just seen on Instapundit:

Fifty-seven percent say being homosexual is the way people are, not the way they choose to be � up from its level a decade ago. But likely voters by 2-1 also call it inappropriate for Kerry, when asked that question, to have noted that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Cheney himself mentioned his daughter's sexual orientation in a campaign appearance in August.

However, as we are seeing here in this thread:

Indeed only among one group, Kerry's own supporters, does a majority (52 percent) say it was appropriate for him to mention Mary Cheney. Among Democrats, 51 percent call it inappropriate; that rises to 64 percent of independents, 80 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Bush supporters.

So it is politically stupid to get stubborn about this. On the other hand:

Yet, on the question of whether homosexuality is a trait or a choice, more people take Kerry's position. (In response to this question at the debate, Kerry said, "I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice." Bush said, "I just don't know.") A third of likely voters call homosexuality a choice; 10 percent have no opinion; and, as noted, 57 percent say it's the way people are. (That compares with 49 percent in an ABC News/"Washington Post" poll of the general population in 1994.)

ABC
So it isn't that people disagree with Kerry on the merits of being gay, or that they think there is anything bad about it that makes it inappropriate to drag her into a public debate. It's more likely that people instinctively draw a line at using a family to score a political point.

[kido]

I agree with SimeyTheLimey. It isn't that Senator Kerry's answer was bad, only his choice of example. It implies that President Bush has avoided talking with Mary Cheney or even the VP about this issue, even though President Bush is not basing his opinion on what gay people think. I've met people that are naturally hostile, but that doesn't mean that they don't make a choice about acting violently.

It essentially says, "If you asked the child of the runningmate of my opponent, they would agree with me about this issue." which implies first, that he knows how the child would reply, and second, if the child agrees with him that either the runningmate should support him too or not be supportive of their own child. It is no-win situation, based upon assumption, and not one that his opponent or his runningmate could even respond.

kido

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So it is politically stupid to get stubborn about this.

Politically, I agree with you. You can't argue with public opinion. I also wonder how much the media's harping on Kerry's comment has helped to shape public opinion.

Personally, though, I think the comment was totally appropriate and I'm perfectly willing to be in the minority there. Was it also a political ploy? Yeah, I think so, but I'm not particularly surprised that none of the Republicans posting in this thread want to admit exactly why it was a ploy. Beyond the sanctimonious pleas that it was inappropriate to bring up Cheney's daughter (which it wasn't, because Cheney had already brought her into the campaign and Kerry was not being judgemental), I suspect the reason Republicans are so upset about this comment is because it drove a wedge straight through their precariously crafted electoral base. Poetic justice, IMO, if it reminds voters that Bush/Cheney try to have both sides of the gay rights issue.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Apparently, 64% of people polled think it does matter.

<snip for space>

I wouldn't quibble with any of those opinion polls. But they are opinions. That doesn't make them right. Our history is full of examples where majority opinion have trampled individual rights. That doesn't make the majority correct.

And it still doesn't make Kerry's statement wrong. IMHO, mentioning Mary Cheney was harmless. It's only exploitative if you believe there was something to exploit. There wasn't.

I'm not surprised many feel that way either. It's only now that we're seeing rebuttals to Dick and Lynne Cheney's obvious hypocrisy and political opportunism. How many are aware that they've been quiet while members of their own party have run hateful anti-gay campaigns or even made personal attacks on their daughter but only speak out now when they sense an opportunity to attack the Democratic Presidential nominee?

The Republican's have always been faster out of the gate executing political strategy. You can't be anything but impressed with the ruthlessness, speed and execution that the Republicans have shown in this election. It's amazing how much of the discussion has been dominated in tearing down a decorated war veteran vs. discussing the record of a failed Presidency.

It makes sense. From their perspective the ends justify the means. From MY perspective both their ends AND means suck. If I was a gay Republican (like Mary Cheney and others), I'd be wondering the same thing. Do I want to support a party that is systematically out to deny and subjugate my rights?

But that's why I'm not in politics, I'm too much the idealist. I happen to think one's position should stand on merit and not on how much mud you can sling.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I suspect the reason Republicans are so upset about this comment is because it drove a wedge straight through their precariously crafted electoral base. Poetic justice, IMO, if it reminds voters that Bush/Cheney try to have both sides of the gay rights issue.

No, I think you are admitting that Kerry decided to use Cheney's family for political purposes. The poetic justice is that it is hurting Kerry, not Cheney.