Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I was really caught off guard at how this pissed off so many Republicans. After the VP debate, there were quite a number of callers on CSPAN decrying this supposed slur. At the time I barely even took note of it.

I just wonder if it will really have the desired effect of lowering Republican turnout.

John Edwards didn’t “bring up” the fact that Dick Cheney has a lesbian in his family. Gwen Ifill did:

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.

As for Kerry’s mentioning it, too, I guess that everyone who was worried about him promoting gay marriage can breathe easy, now that the GOP has labeled him a homophobe. :>

In all seriousness, I thought Andrew Sullivan addressed Kerry’s supposed gaffe pretty well:

You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry.

Personally, I think it was great that Kerry and Edwards is bringing the issue out of the closet (Sorry about the pun). Now, the republican party has to look into the mirror and come to terms that many of their own party members are guy.

Because Mary Cheney and her family decided a few months ago to go public and talk about the issue in a political manner; therefore, they have opened the door to include Mary in the political process. Now that the polls are tight it seems that the Cheney family and the republican party wants to put her in the background. I think if Mary had a problem with Kerry/Edwards speaking of her as an example of choose or how it effects families than she should of spoke out.

By Mr. and Mrs. Cheney running out and crying political foul only widens the gap the republican party has to fill.

A more extensive quote from Sullivan

When Kerry cites Bush’s wife or daughters, no one says it’s a “low blow.” The double standards are entirely a function of people’s lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It’s a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush’s base uncomfortable? Well, good.

I took a stroll over to Sullivan’s blog, and for once, he has actually nailed it! (pun intentional) But, if one of you could point me in the direction of such upheaval online from irate Republicans, it will be fun to get a handle on their talking points. I’ll start at Freeper Central (Free Republic Message Brd), but it would be great if we’d be treated to such arguments here.

In the most bizarre of ironies, such a ‘wedge issue’ previously beneficial to the Right, has been framed in a lose/lose proposition for the Bush camp. The loss of hard evidence revealing a clear political motivation on the part of Kerry and Edwards, leaves the rest of the story to focus on the now unavoidable subject of a parent’s shame.

I used to oppose gay marriage. I reacted to it in a visceral, negative way. Then I began to that gay men and lesbians loved each other as much as I loved my wife. I saw the commitment. Marriage is tough work that yields greater rewards. Anyone willing to undertake that should have my, and society’s, support. I came to see the moral imperative of supporting it. Since I was known for my conservative views re, I think I was very convincing.

I learned, that supporting gay marriage, however, required a degree of trust that I had developed by seeing gay friends. Trust is something you can’t force. Straight couples are afraid that gay marriage is meant as an attack on the institution. They have to learn to trust the intentions of gay couples. Whenever you get courts involved, trust is compromised. I think George Bush did a very good job of explaining his nuanced position. I think he understands that gay marriage can be positive, but he knows that the country is not there yet. I support gay marriage and look forward to a day not long off when it will be accepted as a normal part of life. I think that, however, that it being legalized through the courts will not hasten that day. When the courts impose elite views on the people, they are resented.

Jack,

As you are the epitome of Compassionate Conservative and have come so very far on the subject of gay marriage, let me address and show you the error in your last remark about ‘…courts impose elite views…’

I am not saying or implying that you’re racist, but similar protest over ‘activist judges’ were used in opposition to landmark civil rights decisions that ended segregation and ushered in voting rights protections for Blacks in the 60s’ South.

Every commentary I’ve read citing such behavior by the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court’s decision, has purposely omitted any reference or quoting of the majority’s opinion, or at the very least, cited the Constitutional provision that formed the basis for the judgment.

In your very own words, you captured the spirit of that civil right:

Anyone willing to undertake that should have my, and society’s, support.

Denying the right to marry, renders gays and lesbians to ‘second class status’, a clear violation of the Constitution.

Good post, Bert.

It does say a lot the Republican embarrassment over this.

I was looking at a site recently that exposes politicians who rage at homosexuality while actually being gay themselves, in the closet, of course. The psycology here I find quite interesting.

This reaction kind of reminds me of the infamous qoute, “some of my best friends are colored”

Maybe its a good thing that some people are now having to face their own unseen prejudices.

I’ve always found that it is often those who protest the loudest are somehow entwined within the issue themselves.

Ala, Rush “lock up the druggies” Limbaugh. And Mr.Bill “No Spin, fair and balanced” O’Reilly. One scrambling to avoid jail, the other spinning like a whirling dervish to not look like a letch.

Bert,

You may enjoy Hugh Hewitt. He seriously thinks that Kerry is going to lose because he mentioned Mary Cheney:

Lynne Cheney on John Kerry: “This is not a good man.” Moms everywhere agree. Put a fork in John Kerry.

No doubt. With Lynne Cheney calling him out, he’s doomed. :)

Bert, I think you’re right to compare the struggle for gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the sixties, but only up to a point. Both were (are) legitimate struggles for equal consitutional rights by minority populations.

As I’m sure you know, their was a great rift at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement between “gradualists” who felt equal rights would be achieved eventually at the ballot box as American culture changed (rock n’ roll breaking down cultural barriers, etc).

But civil rights leaders like King argued convincingly (especially in his celebrated Letter from Birmingham Jail) that waiting for the culture to change while people were being forced to sit at the back of the bus, to eat at colored only counters and being denied the vote just wasn’t good enough. The quality of life for Blacks was being so degraded by unjust laws, that judicial action was needed and warranted. But there WAS a cultural backlash, and we still pay a price for it today though it was a price worth paying considering the costs of letting things just coast along.

So that’s where I think the comparison with gay marriage breaks down. It’s not a question of whether gays should be allowed to marry. I for one don’t even think that’s debatable, it’s so obvious to me. I just think that in an era of Will and Grace, openly gay entertainers and politicians and growing acceptance of gays in general(as demonstrated by Jack’s post) we are SO close to winning a broad-based cultural battle. In other words, the battle really can be won at the ballot box, if not now then in the very near future.

When that happens, it will be seen as the will of the people and those who don’t like it can just cry in their beers. If the courts IMPOSE it, however, even it’s the “right thing,” there will be a backlash and we’ll have to keep fighting this same battle for decades to come. Every time a judge gets appointed, the right and left will be forced into the whole Roe vs. Wade dilemna—will this appointment roll back gay rights?

We don’t need that. What I’m advocating is a victory on the playing field that no one can question instead of a culturally devisive top-down decision from the referees—which will ultimately force us to keep fighting the same battle continually for generations.

So anticipating the next argument—isn’t being denied the right to marry the same as being forced to sit at the back of the bus and being denied the vote? In the sense that it’s wrong, yes, because it does confer a kind of “second class” citizenship. But as a daily intrusion on one’s life and ability to function successfuly in society? I don’t think so. For this reason, I favor the gradual approach, one which will lead to total victory instead of a potentially temporary one.

As for Kerry’s remarks, I don’t see how they can be defended for a second.

It’s one thing for a candidate to talk about their own family members, even within the context of a loaded politcal issue, but it’s something quite different for any candidate to talk about their opponent’s personal family life in this way. Edwards, I thought, should be given in a marginal pass—his answer was at least related to a question from the the debate moderator and it seemed like just a momentary lapse of ettiquette on his part.

But not Kerry—he had no business going there. I’d feel the same if Bush had said something like “Senator Kerry, your mother said “Integrity, integrity, integrity to you on her deathbed. So why don’t you show some integrity and support the prescription drug benifits I’ve proposed for seniors like your dying mother?”

Kerry’s family is his business—he can bring them up when he wants to, but it’s nobody else’s to score political points off. And the same goes for Cheney’s family.

During the debate, the reference to Cheney’s daughter didn’t make much of an impression upon me. Bush’s answer about how he “didn’t know” whether homosexuality was a choice struck me as cowardly in the extreme. Well, gee, George, go ahead and take a wild guess. Anyway, the right’s reaction today to this part of the debate caught me off guard. Driving home & flipping channels (is there such a thing as a remote control for the car radio?), Hugh Hewitt & other talk radio hosts were going on and on about how awful it was to bring up Cheney’s daughter’s sexuality, as if this was news, and Kerry was somehow exposing the Cheney family to shame. Fox news tonight continued the drumbeat. It’s a remarkable example of bigotry and prejudice being exposed to the light. If only Mary Cheney had the courage to take a stand. I can understand her reasons for reticence, but it is an opportunity for her to do some good.
I am concerned, however, that fighting the good fight for tolerance is a losing issue for the Democrats. And the implications of that statement are pretty horrible…

Don, anybody who claims to know why some people are gay is full of it. “I don’t know” is the only correct answer, and it would be presumptuous in the extreme to “take a wild guess.”

I find it interesting that the right’s reaction is the one being questioned here. I think we all know what would happen (what DOES happen, as with the behavior of that idiot Keyes) if a Republican candidate started popping off about a Democratic candidate’s gay relatives. People would fall all over themselves screaming about vile homophobia and hatred. The double standard at work here is truly breathtaking.

Martin,

I would think, seeing we’ve verbally tangled so many times, you would at least cease making assumptions.

I was never for gay marriage, but rather advocated legal civil unions. In hindsight, my stance proved more certain, pragmatic and feasible. Did the marriage proponents overstep their bounds, unnecessarily raise the powerful ire of social Conservatives and set back the inevitable? Yes.

But Martin, when Americans seek redress in our courts system, the ‘gradualist’ element has already been factored in.

Who could imagine (again, in hindsight), that in 1968 there were still 23 states with laws against Interracial marriage, on the books. The Constitutional provision against the creation of second class status had been the law of the land going on 200 years, but it took the judicial wisdom and belief that Blacks were the equal of Whites - and, not the ballot box - that ended such discrimination.

We live in society where a whisper campaign of John McCain fathering a child with a Black prostitute, wins a Republican Primary in South Carolina. Where a symbol of slavery, violence and racism is successfully kept flying over Southern government buildings. And, an openly White Supremacist is the GOP nominee for Congress in Tennessee. Now, try convincing me that in this climate there would be no discriminatory laws against Blacks still on the books, if left to the device of Southern voters?

And yes, you are correct in recognizing the gradual acceptance of homosexuality - well, in the Blue states, at least. 20 years from now our community will have made even greater strides as far as acceptance and tolerance - but, not in most Red States. There will be a stark contrast in legal protections as well, Blue states vs. Red States. Where any pro-gay advocacy will still be political suicide.

Martin said:

In the sense that it’s wrong, yes, because it does confer a kind of “second class” citizenship. But as a daily intrusion on one’s life and ability to function successfully in society?

It really is no ‘daily intrusion’ for an American government worker of the Islamic faith, to walk everyday by a monument of the Ten Commandments sitting in the lobby, of his building.

But, why does he need to wait for your permission to object to it?

Martin,

I love how you compare Mary Cheney’s sexuality to Kerry’s dying mother, as if being gay is like some poor prescription drug plan, or some failure in life. Classic example of the right trying to spin kerry’s words into the very prejudice and hate that the right feels themselves.
How is it bad to mention a person, and their sexuality. I find nothing wrong. Same as calling someone male, black, etc.

I’ve got one other response for you:
“I… I don’t know… I don’t know…ah nevermind”

Strong, intelligent words from the current (and soon to be replaced) leader of the free world. How embarassed I am to be represented like this.

Bert, my error then. You mentioned the phrase “gay marriage” several times in your post so I assumed the topic was on the table. As for making assumptions, where did that Muslim walking by the ten commandments come from? Hello, Mohammed. What are you doing here?

Aaron, being gay is no failure in life. Neither is being an elderly woman dying in bed. Your assumption that I, a gay man (though not an elderly woman!) must hate somebody because I say that politicians shouldn’t drag the private family matters of their opponents into campaigns is really not my problem. The knee-jerk accusations and assumptions on display here are not mine.

By Kerry making an insensitive comment about Cheney’s daughter shows that he’ll say and do anything and reach for the nearest, most convenient bit of info to get himself out of any uncomfortable situation.
P.C. liberals, of all people, should know that you just don’t go around offending others and not expect any backlash.

Do we really want a President that will babble wrecklessly, make stupid comments and risk insulting or offending foreign leaders?
Sounds dangerous to me.

Kerry’s true colors came out in the last debate, further proof that the SwiftVets are indeed right on the mark.

bummer,

Here’s the link to the debate transcripts.

I cannot read how Kerry’s comments are ‘insensitive’, but if they were, please explain how they are worthy of such scorn from the Right?

Show me which of his comments represents his ‘…offending others’?

Insensitive because he didn’t even take into consideration how his comment would end up offending others.
The end result, people got offended and that goes against the liberal political correctness agenda.
Why use Mary Cheney as an example?
Why, because it was convenient. IT WAS TACKY and TASTLESS! True colors.

Oh, and that bit about Kerry’s Mom and integrity, I sure hope he was telling us the truth.

bummer,

Sorry, but you’ve still failed to convince how Kerry’s comments rise to such outrage.

In your opinion, is homosexuality an ‘offensive’ subject matter?

Do you find discussing it, ‘tacky’ and ‘tasteless’?

Do you believe homosexuality is something one should be ashamed of being?

bummer said:

“Do we really want a President that will babble wrecklessly, make stupid comments and risk insulting or offending foreign leaders?
Sounds dangerous to me.”

HA! We already have one!

I have mixed emotions about Kerry’s comment. I think it was something of a low blow because he knew it was a sore spot with the Bush campaign and he used it to his own advantage, which makes him look like an opportunist.

On the other hand, the fact that the Bush campaign is in such an uproar over the comment shows just how conflicted THEY are. “We love her, we just don’t want her to be mentioned in public or to have equal rights.” Very compassionate conservatism indeed.

Bert:

I think the point here is that homosexuality and whether it is a choice was the issue. Mary Cheney was NOT the issue. John Kerry made her part of the issue in what would appear to be an attempt to embarrass Dick and Lynne Cheney for their stance on homosexuality.

As such, it was a gratuitous ploy by Kerry. His answer really had nothing to do with Mary Cheney at all. It had to do with whether homosexuality is a choice or not. And Kerry does not know, nor do any of us, what Mary Cheney believes about it. Why is this? Because she has chosen to not be in the spotlight on this. She has openly stated that she is gay, but she has chosen to remain out of the spotlight.

Kerry shone the spotlight directly on her for his own political purposes. She did not ask for this attention. Were she the daughter of anyone BUT the Vice President, would Kerry have still thought it salient to bring her name up??? Even you must admit that were it not for her last name, she would be insignificant.

Bert if you would, please explain why you think she SHOULD have been mentioned, and how Kerry’s mention of her helped make his point. Please also explain why Kerry chose to mention her as opposed to anyone else, or even not mentioning any name. Lastly, ask yourself whether Kerry has any idea of what Mary Cheney thinks on this issue. To attribute his train of thinking as her position seems to me to be callous at best.

Martin, your first post was good and reasonable. Your second post regarding Kerry name checking Mary Cheney was way off the mark.

The only way you can consider his action to be wrong, is if you think there is something embarassing/shameful about being gay.

He didn’t ‘out’ her or diss her, he just stated that she was a lesbian.

He has mentioned Bush’s wife and daughters numerous times, and this has provoked no comment. Yet apparently mentioning Mary Cheney is off limits, the reason being her homosexuality, this double standard can only exist in a mind tainted by prejudice.

Bummer, the only people that could be offended by his remark are homophobic.

This is not an argument that you can win.

I also believe that the President ducking the question was cowardly. Or worse still, he’s making decisions that affect the lives of gay people and he doesn’t seem to have given the subject enough thought to have made up his mind on a key aspect of it.

Joe, I think you’ve made some fair points. But your whole line thinking is based on the prerequisite that there is something wrong/embarassing about being gay.

Lot’s of family members have been mentioned for lots of reason’s. Yet the only time that any controversy has been provoked is when the “gay one” is mentioned.

Why is this?

Bob:

I’m not making any statement of whether there is something wrong/embarrassing about being gay, because that was not part of the issue. We all recognize that the gay issue carries a sensitivity to it. Just look at the Jim McGreevey situation in New Jersey as an example.

Kerry knows its a sensitive issue. We ALL know that. He knows that it is also a personal Cheney family issue. And using her by name added nothing to his statement, unless his attempt was to subtly hint that there is a hypocrisy in the Bush/Cheney camp.

Lets take a hypothetical exchange for a moment. Let’s say Schieffer asked a question about the validity of marriage in general. If a candidate were to say, “Well, I think marriage is important. You know, even my opponent, whose daughter had an extramarital affair, probably thinks marriage is important….” Now how would you feel about that? Kinda sets it into a different perspective, doesnt it?

Kerry, to my knowledge, knows nothing about what Mary Cheney believes or thinks. Yet he chose to guess at what she might think. I can only think of one reason why Kerry mentioned her…. political advantage. In the end, I dont think it helped him.

For the moment, I will defer to the great Bob Hope, who has succinctly and insightfully countered the implausible hysterics, of this manufactured issue.

I feel no obligation to explain, defend or spin John Kerry’s remarks, at this point. A direct result of, after supplying a link to the debate’s transcripts earlier in this comment thread, the naysayers here have passed on quoting the alleged offensive passages, and explaining how they’re ‘tacky’.

John Kerry felt comfortable citing the Cheney’s struggle with accepting their daughter’s lifestyle, because he does not believe homosexuality is a shameful act. The unspoken outrage on the Right, is that he inadvertently shined a light on yet another example of denial, albeit personal, but with political ramifications.

I encourage you, to go check out the website of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered), where you’ll get a sense of the type of parents Mary Cheney deserves.

JBOD,

“If a candidate were to say, “Well, I think marriage is important. You know, even my opponent, whose daughter had an extramarital affair, probably thinks marriage is important….” Now how would you feel about that? Kinda sets it into a different perspective, doesnt it?”

Are you equating an extramarital affair, which is wrong, with being gay?

“using her by name added nothing to his statement, unless his attempt was to subtly hint that there is a hypocrisy in the Bush/Cheney camp.”

I think it was and I think there is.

CER:

I’ve been very clear in previous threads that I consider homosexual behavior to be a sexual issue, and as such, to be akin to promiscuity or adultery. I believe they are all wrong. I recognize that you likely disagree with my position, as is your right.

I think the link to promiscuity is the most similar, since in both situations, the case can be made that no one gets “hurt”, whereas in adultery, there is typically lying, cheating etc.
Just as I see promiscuity as being wrong, I also see homosexual behavior in the same way.

I don’t see any hypocrisy in the Bush/Cheney camp. Bush has stated his opinions and principles, as has Cheney, and both men are living up to their principles. Its fair for you to disagree with their principles and think them to be wrong. That would be far different from being hypocritical.

JBOD,

Thanks for reclarifying your stand on the issue for me, that is it’s wrong to be gay.

As for the hypocrisy, I think it’s clear.

Mary Cheney is out. Dick and Lynne Cheney have professed their support for their daughter and her chosen lifestyle. And yet, their reactions to Kerry’s remarks are not consistent with that. They are acting as if they agree with you and it is wrong to be gay, which clearly is not supporting their daughter and her lifestyle.

It is interesting that many still believe homosexuality is chosen.

Notice I said Believe. It is a religious credo, not a scientifically based belief. Dr’s Kensey and Johnson did extensive studies on human sexuality long ago. Sexuality is something American’s carry a lot of shame about.

It is normative for aproximately 10 percent of any mammalian creature to engage in homosexual behavior.

The difference of opinions here reflect the difference between those that rely on belief and those that rely on scientific study.

It was common for many to cite the inferiority of blacks as reason to justifiy discrimination, but science doesn’t support that.

My father often stated that the Black Panthers did more to promote changes for African Americans, because the powers that be feared revolution and violence. I believe a combination of King’s reasoned peacefulness and the radicalization threat worked together to bring change. Gradualism is little more than appeasement and fuels radicalization when it comes too slowly.

Americans pay a price when they wait too long.

Joe: I can only think of one reason why Kerry mentioned her…. political advantage.

I think there may be some truth in this, but he still didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t denigrate or out her and he had already stated that homosexuality is not a choice. I think he is on pretty firm ground.

What he said discomfitted the BC04 campaign because they are pandering to homophobes with regard to their stance on gay rights, and Mary Cheney is an unwelcome embarrassment to them as a result.

I think this cold, hard and unforgiving fact is pretty insurmountable.

Martin,
Is homosexuality a choice? I’ll say again, answering that queestion with “I don’t know” is cowardly. Whether it’s nature or nurture could be debated, but the orientation occurs without individual choice. I’d argue there are sexual behaviors that occur by choice, but as a matter of experimentation, rather than fundamental orientation. Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is normal. There is no shame involved, nothing offensive in bringing the matter up in context, when the question arises. Generally speaking, I’d agree sexual orientation is a private matter. ‘Outing’ political figures could be considered an invasion of their privacy, and offensive in that sense, I suppose, but if I were publicy ‘outed’ as a heterosexual, does that involve shame? Substitute the word ‘homosexual’ for ‘heterosexual’ in the previous sentence and you see my point. While a massive ‘outing’ of public figures would be an invasion of privacy, Mary Cheney’s orientation is already public.

I doubt Kerry meant this remark unkindly, I think it was just a natural followup to the remarks from the VP debate. In fact, it’s just a suspicion, but maybe the Cheney’s are actually not really all that upset, but are just trying to use this for *their political advantage*? After all Kerry didn’t say anything about Mary that hasn’t been publically acknowledged. Tom Tomorrow pointed out that Lynn Cheney’s has written a racy novel that was described as “a historical romance published in 1981 that includes brothels, attempted rapes and a lesbian love affair.” (To which I say, good for her!) But then why are they now so thin-skinned about this?

CER:

I’ve not seen anywhere that the Cheneys “support” their daughter’s homosexual lifestyle. That is far different from loving her and supporting her as a person. To use my example of promiscuity, were one of my children promiscuous, I could love them nonetheless, but still not like their actions in that regard. I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the Cheney’s position.

William Cohen:

You might be right about the Cheney’s using this as a political tool. I can’t claim to know how upset they are, but I would maintain that it is more a part of their private life, and even more so Mary Cheney’s private life, that Kerry should have stayed away from.
Bob Hope:

I dont think the Cheney’s are embarrassed at all by their daughter. I think they disagree with some of the actions she engages in, but this too is far from embarrassment.

I also don’t quite understand your use of the term “homophobe”. I’m not sure what context you place that in. For instance, would you consider me a homophobe for my above statements in this thread? I’m not sure what qualifies someone as a homophobe in your vernacular.

JBOD,

Dick Cheney has gone on record saying, “People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want.” Most recently in the VP debate. Don’t you think that statement can be construed as support of the lifestyle that his daughter lives?

I know this may come as a shock but maybe Mary Cheney doesn’t want to be in the spotlight. This does not mean that the Cheney’s are “ashamed” of her and how the hell does Mrs. Edwards know what Mrs. Cheney thinks or feels? No one assumes that Teresa Kerry is ashamed of her son who lives in Pennsylvania. He has not attended one political event or even spoked about the campaign. Finally, the difference between the candidates talking about their families and Kerry talking about Mary Cheney is that the Bush & Kerry daughters are not being used to prove a political point. That is what Kerry/Edwards did.

While I don’t think using analogies are generally the most effective way of arguing, the analogies presented here are interesting.

People have compared Kerry’s Mary Cheney comments with “outing” someone, talking about a dying parent, or commenting on a friend’s alcoholism. These analogies do not seem apt.

I would make the analogy with baseball, something that most people consider harmless. Suppose, in response to a question about baseball, Kerry had mentioned Bush’s former ownership of the Texas Rangers. No one would have a problem with it.

I really have difficulty understanding why republicans are feigning offense at Kerry’s Mary Cheney’s comment.

The gay issue is a cheap and easy way for the republicans to fall back on when they need to divert attention from their failed policies.
Bush has been using this issue all along, It rings well with his core supporters. Hate and fear is what drives the republicans to the polls
And they have been trying to inflict the world with their sick views. But they will have a setback on Nov. 2nd.

CER:

You might be right. I was thinking that we dnn’t really know what the Cheney’s really think of their daughter’s lifestyle. I’ve gotten the impression that they are not in favor of a homosexual lifestyle, but perhaps are supporting their daughter in her choice of how to live her life.

I think her lifestyle would be better off left in private by those who don’t know her. Especially those who see here as a political opportunity to be used.

Bert,
No, homosexuality is not an offensive subject matter. You are missing the point. It was tacky and tasteless to exploit her sexuality. I stand by my original comment, Kerry was insensitive to even bring it up, you just don’t do that. Call it Human Character 101. No one has any right to try to use another persons lifestyle as a stepping stone for their own self gain. Almost like an act of desperation.

During the VP debate, Edwards had nice words to say about the VP’s daughter and Cheney sincerely thanked him for those “kind words”, didn’t even use up his 90 seconds. But that was more than just a heart felt thank you, it was more like a ‘thanks for the kind words, but please don’t ever bring up my daughter again, PERIOD!’

It has nothing to do with her being a homosexual, whether it’s a learned behavior or genetics. Don’t want to open up a can of worms but the truth is, nobody knows, so Bush hit the nail on the head with his answer.
I’m sure Kerry meant no harm, at least I sure hope he didn’t, in using Mary Cheney as an example, but he never should’ve done it. Kids and family members should be off limits.

No, I don’t believe homosexuality is something to be ashamed about but apparently Mary Beth Cahill does with her “fair game” remark. Birds of a feather I guess.

Let’s look at it in a different way, suppose we substitute the word ‘homosexual’ with a few other words such as, dare I say, ‘black’ or ‘special (retarded)’. In other words, someone’s black daughter, someone’s retarded daughter.

KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to ‘s daughter, who is (a) , 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.

I could already see the outrage. Whether he was trying to be sincere or if it was cheap shot cloaked in sincerity doesn’t matter, it was the wrong statement to make, at the wrong time!

Alejo
Gawd, you are so predictable.
When I made my original comment I already knew someone would counter with this same exact point.
Surely I can understand why you make this statement, we all have a favorite Bushism. I like the one about “putting food on your family”.
Fact is, everybody loves Bushism’s, especially the President, he laughs along with Leno and Letterman, Self-deprecating humor, remember?

The point I was making is this, with all the hundreds of Bushisms out there, not one has ever resulted in offending or disrespecting leaders or cultures of foreign countries.
All Bushisms have been at dubya’s expense, and no one else.

That’s why I think Kerry is dangerous, he says what he thinks people want to hear but he must remember this:
You can please some of the people, some of the time; but you can’t please all of the people, all the time.

Lastly, I must say, good Bushisms are sure getting scarce.

No bummer…

You’re now trying to spin malice and conspiracy by Kerry, but now only with adjectives like ‘tacky’ and ‘tasteless’?

The very first time Mary Cheney was mentioned in this election, was by her father on the campaign trail. He sought to exploit his daughter’s sexuality, when announcing he opposed Bush on the Gay Marriage Amendment. Which doubled as BC04 trying to revive the ‘Compassionate Conservative’ clap trap. It was for this reason that Mary Beth Cahill said Mary Cheney was ‘fair game’.

But, I also ask you bummer, why was Mary Cheney not onstage at the close of the GOP Convention in NY?

Why hasn’t Mary Cheney been available to the media, in spite of having a high profile management position in the Bush campaign?

Where is Mary Cheney’s public outrage at Kerry’s comments?

2008 Presidential Debate:

Question to the Republican Presidential Candidate: Do you believe drug addiction is a choice or genetic?

Answer: We all know that Dem Canditate Hillary Clinton’s daughter is a drug addict. (Did you heat that all, or should I say it again looking in the camera?) I think her parents love her very much. I think we should understand her and know that she is not only a druggie, but also a slut.

Both Kerry’s and Edwards’ answer included reference to Mary Cheney. The difference was the context of the question.

The question put to Cheney and Edwards was specifically targeted towards Cheney’s stance on gay marriage, and included his family situation. So it was perfectly acceptable for Edwards to also talk about Mary Cheney. It was part of the question!!

In Kerry’s situation, the question had NOTHING to do with Mary Cheney. Kerry gratuitously included Mary Cheney into his answer as a political tool. The question did not ask anything about Cheney’s family circumstances….therefore Mary’s status was not necessary to the answer. And if you look at his answer, and simply delete the reference, the answer remains exactly the same.

It was gratuitous, and you all know it. If you cannot see how the question had nothing to do with her, then you should re examine the text of the debate.

I think her lifestyle would be better off left in private by those who don’t know her. Especially those who see here as a political opportunity to be used.

While I agree with you that Kerry’s comment was gratuitous (in the sense of being unnecessary), the claim her sexuality should be “left in private” completely ignores the facts. Her own father brought it up in the VP debate four years ago. He obviously thought he was helping himself (i.e., using her) in some way. As others have pointed out, she has worked as a gay liaison for Coors. Her sexuality is about as “private” as George Bush’s religious beliefs, which is to say not private at all.

This whole affair reminds me of when the media reprinted Arnold’s comments in Oui and conservatives were complaining about “invasion of privacy”. If you want to keep your private life private (and Mary Cheney isn’t acting like she does), don’t talk about it in public.

Excuse me guy’s. Mary Cheney is a public figure. She is her father’s campaign manager.

Does that mean that Kerry used her as a target? Hardly.

Could it have been a compassionate answer to a direct question? Maybe.

Could this have been a preemptive strike to keep the gay marraige thing out of the campaign? Also maybe.

The RNC really has to stretch to be the champion of gay dignity.

Bert,
The reason Cheney first mentioned that he had a lesbian daughter was because HE wanted to make it public before the Main Stream Media got wind of it. Having done so, he beat them to the punch, it was the right thing to do as a parent, but it was not exploitation.
If he himself had not gone public and the story broke, the media, the moonbats and the hollywood idiots would have jumped all over it, accusing him of being ashamed of his daughter’s sexuality.
See how it works?.. it’s called one-upmanship.

As for Mary Cheney, you have valid questions, but we really don’t know why she wasn’t onstage at the RNC. We don’t know why she hasn’t made herself available to the media folks. We don’t know if she is outraged over Kerry’s remark.
Let me see, could it be that she is an introvert that would prefer to keep a low profile?
We just don’t know.
I’m not going to speculate and neither should you.
Bottom line, Kerry was wrong, wrong, wrong to even mention Cheney’s daughter and he knows it.

Just look at the video footage again, how he hesitates, squirms and looks down before he blurts out the word “lesbian”.
He seemed uneasy and uncomfortable, almost as if he was forcing that word out of his mouth.

Why didn’t he just say “gay”?

Is there a body language expert in the house?

Geez, another example of Kerry putting foot in mouth, two Kerry blunders in less than a week.

Like I stated in an earlier post, Kerry is scary. Bushism’s may be humorous, but they don’t get people killed.

Kerry hasn’t even been elected yet, … but he’s already dangerous.
Is this his idea of bringing people together?

bummer,

It may come as a surprise, but a swing state population full of folks knew Mary Cheney was a lesbian, even before Dick Cheney was picked as VP in 2000. With a fair amount of those in the know being media Liberals, it was never considered newsworthy, relevant or appropriate.

Probably more surprising, many in the gay community and the media were also privy to the (hypocritical?) gay exploits of the now out Gov. McGreevey, the now forcibly outed Rep. Schrock and David Dreier, and the that old queen, Ed Koch. Republicans leading double lives certainly is a better story than Cheney’s daughter. Unfortunately, we have bloggers, moonbats(?) and Hollywood idiots - but not a Coulter, Drudge or Bob Novak among them.

Let me see, could it be that she is an introvert that would prefer to keep a low profile? We just don’t know. I’m not going to speculate and neither should you.

Excuse me bum, but a ways back in this comment thread, it was you who opened up a big ol’ can of ‘speculation’, as to the motivation and/or heartless political trickery behind Kerry’s comments. I can understand your reluctance to now turn the bright light on Ms. Cheney. Pulling a Bremmer, or a John Snow, or a Rumsfeld by blurting out the truth, would hurt your argument.

But, what’s behind this ‘…neither should you’ remark? You worried that any lesbian-related speculation on my part would be inappropriate? Embarrassing? Uncomfortable? Sexual in nature? Shameful?

Lastly, I’ll tell you exactly why Mary Cheney was not onstage at the end of the GOP Convention. Ms. Cheney has been in a committed relationship with a woman, for some years now. It is a life-partner relationship, the closest our community can reasonably come to marriage, and obviously carried some significance with the Bush campaign.

So, what do you believe would’ve been a story line of some merit out of the convention, if Mary showed up on stage without her partner?

I am amazed that the desperate Repugs have not mentioned that Christopher Reeve dying has to help that bad ole Kerry and it was something that he should have waited to do until after Nov.2

Though I appreciate the amount of information you’ve provided on this subject, we seem to have digressed from the orinal argument, whether Kerry was wrong to exploit Cheney’s daughter. You say it was OK, I say it was wrong, so I guess we agree to disagree. I’m well aware of the hypocrisy on both sides, come on, it’s politics.

You sure seem to cover this topic quite well, given the names you mention, this leads me to believe you are probably gay.
For the record I’m not a homophobe, you might be surprised to know I’ve got nothing against gays. In fact I work with a gay individual.

When it comes homosexuality, I say live and let live, as long as they don’t try to push their agenda and lifestyle down our throats. Still, I don’t understand why some people should have to change their way of life just to make a certain other group of people happy just because they are offended by something like “One nation under God” or the “10 Commandments”.

I for one don’t understand the same sex marraige issue, I mean for the longest time we were told theirs’ is an ‘alternative’ lifestyle. I took that to mean alternative to the traditional Man/Woman relationship.

Ellen was extremely funny, especially when she came out, but she soon began to turn people off when every other statement out of her mouth was “I’m a lesbian”.
Kinda like Chris Rock, he was funny until he started making everything a White vs Black thang.
People get tired of hearing the same thing from the same individual, why do you think Kerry swiftly dropped the “Did you know I was in Vietnam” bit.

Look, this “Lesbian” issue has been beat to death by now, it’s time to get back to the real issues that can directly or indirectly affect us all. I don’t know about you but the “Oil for Food” story sure seems interesting.

bummer,

I doubt you’ll return to read this reply, but I couldn’t let your additional misstatements go unchecked.

Please, do not write things like ‘you said…’, unless going back and double checking for accuracy. I never said it was ‘…ok for Kerry to exploit…’

If you’re ‘well aware of the hypocrisy’ on my side, I’d like to hear it.

What am I to think upon hearing you state that ‘…I’m probably gay’, when I state that clearly in the very first sentence of my entry?

People who are not homophobic don’t usually think the gay lifestyle is ‘being shoved down their throat, and agenda being pushed on them.’ Because, you work with someone gay also does not make you automatically tolerant. And, you should look into the Constitution’s definition of the separation of church and state.

Again, your comments on Ellen certainly displays an tolerance towards gay expressing themselves.

I’m well aware of the fact that expressing anti-gay beliefs has become socially unacceptable among most educated adults, these days.

However, just because you do not wear the mask, does not mean the belief isn’t there.

Please explain what YOU mean by ‘hypocrisy’ on my side’, after blogging with you, I realize I need to be extemely specific.
Do you mean you yourself/personally or the liberal group you belong to?
Don’t be so sensitive, we (you and I) are not at war. When I said ‘hypocrisy on both sides’ I was referring to both political parties, but since we’re on the subject, again:
You first stated:
The very first time Mary Cheney was mentioned in this election, was by her father on the campaign trail. He sought to exploit his daughter’s sexuality,
then quickly defended Cahill with:
“It was for this reason that Mary Beth Cahill said Mary Cheney was ‘fair game’.”.
This led me to believe that perhaps you have a one good exploit deserves another mentality.
BTW, you say I misstated you, well I’ll have to say you misquoted me; “You say it was OK” is not the same as ‘…ok for Kerry to exploit…’.

Want examples of hypocrisy?..OK,
1) Liberals always cry foul and get offended whenever something is not quite politically correct (or rather, not quite to their liking), yet the Cheney’s get offended by the said statement and they are told by Edward’s wife, who happens to be fat (oops, sorry, I know that was uncalled for, but hope you see my point), not to overreact.

2) Kerry backpeddles by saying it was only meant as a compliment, yet Trent Lott also had a few nice, complimentary words to say about ol’ what’s his face and the liberals were quickly out for blood asking for Lott’s job. Both comments were stupid, WRONG, and in Kerry’s case, not very Presidential.

3) Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9-11 gets a unanimous green light, yet the liberals complain about Sinclair airing Stolen Honor.

I can go on but I hope you get the picture.

For the record I will say again, I am not homophobic, so don’t be so selfish, you seem to think everything should be about YOU (my God, feels like I’m arguing with my girlfriend here, creepy).
I do have a confession to make though, I don’t really work with a gay person, at least not that I know of anyway. Not surprising that you think I’m intolerant of gays when actually I could care less what ALL Y’ALL do.

Look, it was a stupid statement made by Kerry so don’t try to twist it by saying that the Cheney’s are ashamed of their gay daughter, that they are offended by their gay daughter, that homosexuality is tacky and tasteless.
NO, NO, NO, you are missing the point, the offense was making the statment in the first place, a statment which involved a family member, a daughter.
That is what I mean by “tacky and testeless”, because as far as I (and over 63% of Americans) see it, the crime was making the statement, whether IT was about a lesbian, a black, retarded or fat person has no bearing.
The buck stops at the statement, period.

You keep proving my point quite nicely though, the point about trying to shove homosexuality down our throats, the way you try to make this a gay issue, with your me Me ME tactics.

Don’t try so hard to be accepted, it’s happening.

You might enjoy this, or at least explain it to the rest of us.

What’s with the compact?

Yes bummer…

You do need to be specific, because I was referring to the hypocrisy you sighted - on the subject of this Mary Cheney subject, only.

Again, do not substitute the word ‘exploit’ in place of what I really wrote! ‘Fair game’ does not infer ‘exploit’, except in your mind.

I do have a confession to make though, I don’t really work with a gay person, at least not that I know of anyway. Not surprising that you think I’m intolerant of gays when actually I could care less what ALL Y’ALL do.

Except for Ellen shoving her gayness down your throat, etc?

And, no bummer you keep proving my point by lying, distorting, spouting half-truths and twisting my words, when the real ones will not make your case, or when I proved you never bothered to read them in the first place!

It’s official, the entire Cheney family was angry, including Mary Cheney!