posted
Why is an uproar being made over Kerry pointing out this obvious fact that Cheney himself publicly acknowledged? The girl goes around proudly declaring her lesbianism, and Kerry using it his response to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice is somehow wrong and offensive? I don't get it. And yes, lesbianism is a word, and if it isn't, it should be.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's probably bad form to bring up the relatives of people from the top levels of your opponent's administration in order to argue against one of their beliefs. It's a bit personal, I think, and there are plenty of other homosexual people he could have brought up. But I can't say I had a very strong reaction either way when he said it.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read an article about that. I don't think he was being insulting in the slightest bit...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what? Pointing out that an openly gay woman is a lesbian is only bad if you think that there's something WRONG with being a lesbian.
Fox News knows that a significant portion of the Republican party does think there's something wrong with being a lesbian, so they're going for Kerry's throat over this.
But think about it.... was there an uproar when Kerry mentioned that Bush had great daughters and a wonderful wife? No.... even though it was personal and a "political" move, there's nothing "wrong" with being a great daughter or a wonderful wife.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kerry was using his daughter as an argument against him. It's tacky to use your opponent's family as a weapon.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, kat, then you agree that pointing out that an openly gay (and proud of it) woman is a lesbian is an attack?
It's like saying that pointing out the hair color of a blonde woman is insulting. It only makes sense if you believe that being blonde is somehow inferior.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you are arguing with someone, it is bad form to use anything about their family to discredit them. It doesn't matter what it is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To "discredit" them? How exactly does this discredit Bush or Cheney?
quote:"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, 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."
Cheney: "I think that all people in this great nation have the ability to achieve their dreams. I think that if you asked John Edwards, who was the son of a mill worker, he would agree. He is the embodiment of the American dream."
Now, Edwards has made this point himself several times during the campaign. If Cheney were to say this as a response to a question, do you think Edwards' mom would be all over the radio claiming that Cheney was a "bad person"? That Cheney was using her husband's shameful poverty as a political tool?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mod: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
Kerry (paraphrased): Ask Dick Cheney's daughter if it was a choice.
WTF? Just answer the question. We aren't here to talk about what other people think.
What possible reason could he have, if not a political jab, to mention Mary Cheney? I don't care that both sides are using her as a tool, I just expect more from Kerry.
Poly, I think you're being disingenuous. I like Kerry, but in this instance, I think he would've been better off bringing his (more popular) opinion up, rather than bringing his opponent down.
This isn't an argument about whether or not Cheney's ashamed of his daughter, it's about whether or not we should be using family as ammo.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
I believe that Kerry was simply using the closest example he could find, and framing the question in a more human light. I absolutely did not read what he said as any kind of attack.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
I totally disagree. It's obviously an attack, but because I know that a lot of Republican support is against homosexual marriage. I don't agree with those people, but it's an attack by Kerry nonetheless. And using family members in an attack is tacky at best.
[edit: and a bad attack, at that. I think that playing up the Mary Cheney card isn't going to lose Bush his anti-homosexual marriage votes, but it might gain him some fence-sitters who think that Dick might temper his strong anti-gay stance]
posted
I don't think that is true either. I don't see that being gay makes anyone inferior, but homosexuality is a political liability when running for national ofice, and it isn't being descriminatory to admit that.
I support Kerry, but I was incomfortable with that answer....although it made sense to phrase it that way....it brings home the fact that the Republican ticket itself is split on gay issues, which is something that they have been teying to sweep under that table. I strongly dislike Cheney, but in this case I think he is right and Bush is wrong.
Still, it is considered very tacky to use someones family against them, unless that family is out there compaining....which, as far as I know, Cheney's daughter has not been doing. Once a family memeber enters the public arena, then they are fair game....but until then, stay away from specific attacks.
quote: I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
Cheney's daughter is openly gay, this is a fact. She is not out in the streets campaigning for gay rights, she is not often with her father on the campaign trail, she is just living her life. Taking her and turning her into a political tool is wrong.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
About Edwards being from a mil workers family...it isn't the same thing at all.
Beig from a mill workers family qon't cost Edwards votes, except for maybe a few snobs....it isn't a political liability, and if it was mentioned it wouldn't be consrued an attack, because it isn't controversial.
Acknwledging something like lesbianism is a potential liability, and there is no doubt that thet is why Kerry mentioned it in a public forum. Not because he felt it was the most honest/complete answer to the question, but because he saw a potential "point" for himself in the debate.
People, if they aren't politicians, are not points in a debate....even if they are family.
It's not like Kerry raised the question, though...I just don't think he answred it that well, and was a bit tacky.
After all, they ARE using their families to run for office....and they are all in the public eye constantly.
posted
Well, at least we can all agree that having a lesbian daughter is enough to lose you some Republican votes. It's disappointing, but I guess it lets you know where people stand.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be mentioned that Mary Cheney has been, in times past, a public advocate for gay civil rights. Yet since she has been working for her father's campaign she has been surprisingly absent from the public's eye.
I think Kerry would have been far more effective with something like: "I believe that people are what God made them. I think all of us here have a gay friend, a son, a daughter, someone you care about deeply. Would they say it was a choice?"
Gets the point across, doesn't pick on Mary.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see this as picking on Mary. Personally, I think this whole 'uproar' is a non-issue and a desperate attempt to grab on to something in hopes that it can slow down the Kerry momentum.
I think the Bush/Cheney campaign cheered when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter. It gave them something to attack coming out of a debate.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, at least we can all agree that having a lesbian daughter is enough to lose you some Republican votes. It's disappointing, but I guess it lets you know where people stand.
It's enough to lose you some Democratic votes as well, which of course is the reason Kerrey said it.
People dogged Chelsea Clinton for awhile, bu that was mercifully cut short.
There were a few headlines about GWB's daughter's troubles with substance abuse and somewhat injudicious behavior.
Ultimately, nobody takes these things seriously. We aren't electing the relatives of the President. We're electing the President.
The only people who would take it seriously (that someone HAS a homosexual daughter, son, or whatever) and base their choice of leader on that is, IMHO, missing the point.
Cheney has used his daughter's lesbianism in the campaign. Kerry should not have. But it's not a big deal for most people choosing the President.
And he didn't say anything bad about her. He simply pointed out the same thing that Cheney has said on a number of occassions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think it was a stupid move on Kerry's part, since the reaction of the Cheneys and the media in general was entirely predictable.
So this morning it was arguably THE major political story of the day on the morning shows, dominating (cough) less significant stories such as the announcement that we will have to raise the debt ceiling.
I think the latter story would help Kerry more. Instead, the media is talking about his remarks about Cheney's daughter. Stupid move. IM(cough)HO
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Andrew Sullivan (openly gay, openly conservative writer):
"Let's say the president was proposing [...] a constitutional amendment to ban inter-racial marriage. Now let's say the veep's daughter was married to a black man. Would it be relevant then? Of course it would. But there is an obvious solution to this debate: let Mary speak. She's running the veep's campaign. She's an adult. Why can't she tell us if she's upset by Kerry's and Edwards' remarks? Give her a microphone, guys. What are you afraid of?"
I agree that Kerry's remark was sloppy. I do not agree that it was out of line.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty clear that Kerry's remark was not an attack. Even if other people do think homosexuality is something bad, they all know Kerry does not think it is something shameful.
However, the Republican response IS an attack. They are bringing out Cheney's wife in this to, once again, try to convince the voters that Kerry was saying things he didn't - the he was making an attack when he wasn't. This has consistently been their strategy, so I don't think we have much good reason to think they've changed - and that Mrs. Cheney really thinks this was an attack.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think it was an attack. I just don't think it was what Kerry's being accused of - trying to use a candidate's children to embarass him.
It's an uproar because Kerry is being accused of picking on Cheney's daughter, when he was (I believe) just trying to point out the flaws in his opponent's stand on the gay marriage amendment by putting a human face on it, one that is close to their hearts.
If Karl Rove were gay, and Kerry mentioned him by name instead, there would not have been the same uproar.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that Kerry's remark was sloppy. I do not agree that it was out of line.
I agree with this, but I don't think I was clear. I don't think there was anything unfair or unkind or "out of line" about the remark.
But when the words came out of Kerry's mouth, I had a pretty good idea of what the response of the Bush camp would be and how the media would go with it. If it's no surprise to me, shouldn't Kerry have been able to see this coming? Dumb move, as judged by the results.
posted
Kerry is just using the same sleazy tactics that he has been using. We saw this when he successfully provoked Bush in the first debate when he intentionally left out Poland of the coalition. We saw it all three debates when he repeated the same false job numbers that Bush is unable to call him on. He's also being incredibly presumptuous to think he knows how the Cheney family feels. But it works for him, it gets conservatives questioning Cheney, it gets under Bush's skin, and it makes him look compassionate.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it sleazy to leave a country out of the coalition that is withdrawing from the coalition? That's just being accurate.
And the job numbers weren't false. They were just the most negative numbers he could have picked out to represent job decline.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I honestly believe that you can't possibly see this as an "attack" on the Bush/Cheney campaign unless you agree that being gay is shameful and wrong.
quote:After the debate, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said Cheney's daughter was "fair game."
Fair game? That means Kerry's campaign manager considers it an attack?
----
No, I don't think Kerry considered calling her a lesbian to be an attack. I do think the comment was done with full knowledge that it would be considered a point against Cheney by some, and in that case it was an attack. Using family who is not involved in the campaign.
posted
Poland isn't withdrawing, it is considering the eventual withdrawal of troops and they were part of the original invasion force. Since the original invasion force the number nations has been increased to 30, either way he's using the wrong information, and it was intentional, he was trying to bait the President and he succeeded.
That's like saying that I could claim the NASDAQ as the entire stock market.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno...I expect slightly more in terms of courtesy from the Kerry camp than the Bush camp, but by no means does that mean they're courteous.
When Kerry said it, I think he was trying to make two points at the same time. First point is that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice, homosexuals are our kindred, too, and worthy of respect just like everyone else.
That point, I wholeheartedly agree with.
But the other point I think was being made was an attempt by Kerry to illustrate how stupid the opposing view held by many Republicans (and many Democrats, if polls on homosexual marriage are any indicator). How can they think otherwise? The VP's own daughter is gay!
That's less classy, even though I don't know how Kerry feels about homosexuality (I know what he says).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Just one point here. Mary Cheney is Dick Cheney's campaign manager, according to many news sites (although it might be hard to find her name on the campaign website now). So she IS part of the campaign.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that makes it bad is that he had no need whatsoever to name any names. He could have made his point without mentioning anyone. The trick is that he knows there are several staunch conservatives out there who didn't know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. I think he was trying to shock those people for some odd reason. In my opinion, in politics, it is just plain morally irresposible to talk about someone's personal life on national TV without that person's permission. Just my two cents thrown into the fire.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you should use the family of the candidate to attack that candidate. Just my opinion.
Otherwise Teresa Heinz and her post debate "rat's nest" would be fair game. She looked like she had just gotten out of a "cat fight" with that hair doo.
If Cheney's daughter is "fair game" then so would Kerry's wife be, and she would be very easy "game" at that.
But that is just my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teresa Heinz's hairdo has no relevance to policy.
The Bush administration is pushing for an amendment to ban gay marriage. I think asking the vice president what his thoughts are on that, considering he has a gay daughter and knows firsthand that homosexuals are not deviants to be feared and discriminated against, is a very worthwhile question.
I do think, as stated previous, that Kerry should have asked the more general question and not named Mary specifically. "Mr. Bush, I'm sure you know many gay people that are intelligent, caring, worthy of a lasting love and commitment. Can you look them in the eye and tell them they cannot marry their loved ones?"
To me, more effective, and bound to make for an uncomfortable moment around the Cheney house...
Mary has long been a gay-rights activist. After graduating from Colorado College, Cheney went to work as a gay community liaison for Coors Brewing Company, where she was instrumental in ending a 20-year boycott by the gay community of that company. Cheney left Coors in 2000 to work with her father and the Bush campaign. In 2002, Mary Cheney served on the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance formed within the Republican party to help increase tolerance within the party for gays and lesbians, and others. Currently she's the director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.
She is working to re-elect an adminstration that will marginalize her as a person. Dunno about you, but I'm interested in her take on this, I really am.
[ October 15, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Just because someone thinks it is okay to use something in an attack (they are "fair game"), it doesn't mean it isn't an attack.
This, of course, mixes metaphors with above contention that it's tacky use to family as a weapon. Any attempt to score points off of someone is an attempt to discredit. They aren't having a conversation at a cocktail party (or a forum...), they are in a race.
posted
By that logic everything any candidate says would be an attack - in which case, who cares if it's an attack?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sad when both candidates have so few positives to say about themselves, that they have to resort to focusing on the negatives of their opponent.
It would be nice (but impossible) to have a "His plan is good, but mines better" or "He would be a good president, but I would be better".
Funny comming from me, but that would be nice.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Bush pointed out that obesity is an important health concern, just ask Edward's [insert family member here], would that have been considered tacky? I don't know that any of Edward's family is obese. It's just the closest correlate in my opinion.
Many of the obese are born that way, many are due to circumstances they essentially have no control over, and many are because they have been overly influenced by the agressive marketing of junk food. Some few are just gluttonous and lazy, but that's no reason to shame, humiliate, and persecute the lot of them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a good comparison, because Cheney's daughter's sexual preferences had already come up - as a question in the Vice Presidential debate and as something raised by Cheney himself earlier in the year.
Nothing about anyone fat had already come up, and I think it is difficult to imagine the moderator asking a question about Kerry's friend's fatness or anything like that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's sad when both candidates have so few positives to say about themselves, that they have to resort to focusing on the negatives of their opponent.
Personally, I think a lot of people in addition to Chad will enjoy it. I am grateful to UofUlawguy for pointing this strip out to me.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is plenty of the pot and kettle calling each other black, that's all. It was no more of an attack as to say that "Kerry and Edwards are rich, too" when a Republican points out that their opponents aren't, in fact, representing the average Joe. An attack would be to say that Cheney abused his lesbian daughter because she was a lesbian or something of that sort. Simply pointing out something that is public record is far from an attack, especially in this vicious political environment.
posted
You should all be ashamed of yourselves for even discussing this. This is nothing but a blatant attempt to create a distraction from policy issues. The Cheneys and the GOP are feigning deep offense at this remark because they know it is to their advantage in the spin cycle. They know that they can benefit from taking the focus off a nuanced and complex discussion of the issues and focus on something simple and one sided, like outrage over an out of context sound bite.
I don't blame them for doing it. They want to win, and they can get away with it. The blame lies with the media, for refusing to keep the discourse reasonable, and the general public, for showing a complete disinterest in things like fiscal policy and constitutional law.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
pooka
