The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Meanwhile, his friend who likes to sit on the other side of the aisle didn't see a problem with trying to bar a candidate from even being considered by the people. After all, it wasn't convenient this time.

He accepted that people's children be used to make political statements and couldn't see why that might not be a good precedent. He didn't understand why the method was bad, if the specific subject matter used happened to fit his politics.

He didn't seem to even notice when his team began fighting to stop distasteful documentaries from being aired, if they didn't fit his views.

When he asked his friend, "Where do you think these guys are leading you?" He was probably surprised to hear him respond: a Bi-partisan road to hell...

Which comedian said the only thing worse than Democrats or Republicans is when these people work together?

Anyone else get this same mental image upon seeing that photo of James Carville?

Really, the Bush campaign HAS TO attempt re-direction here, switching focus from the cognitively dissonant Mary Cheney homosexuality fact to the slander of the messenger.

As others have noted, what is really at issue here isn't the public mention of Mary Cheney's sexual orientation, it is that the fact of it is politically inconvenient for a campaign which depends utterly on gaining as many votes from the religious right as can possibly be mustered. And as others have also noted, it provided a re-direction of attention away from the press narrative and polls which suggested that Bush had lost all three debates, or lost two and tied one.

The Cheneys indict Kerry as a 'bad person' for speaking truthfully (and relevantly to the question which preceded). Yet the notion of homosexuality being somehow perverse or bad sits entirely in the heads of those running the Bush campaign. Or, just as likely, it doesn't but they try to convince their base that it does for reasons of electoral gain.

Spreading hatred has consequences.

Joe... Must be related.

Blatham, how does that explain 40% of Kerry's supporters feeling it was inappropriate?

Hint: Take your focus off the word "Lesbian" and put it on the word "Daughter".



I'm sure the GOP appreciates Kerry's fumble immensely, and will run with that ball all the way to the end zone if they can… That's how the game is played. Ya'll better hope Kerry understands his mistake… or he's liable to repeat it.

Good Lord! Ya'll are acting like she's 12. She's not. She's a mature adult. She's been out. She's been active in gay rights. Her family has brought it up themselves. Keyes called her a sinner and they didn't get outraged. As a matter of fact, SHE hasn't said anything about it. if SHE isn't offended why should anyone else be?

Get over it!

What makes you think she wasn't offended?

Nothing to get over sweetie... I barely noticed it when it happened. When folks stop trying to defend the foolish act, I'll stop pointing out the folly in doing so. :wink:

Maybe this will help you.

What do the words Daughter, Son, Sister, Brother, Mother and Father all have in common? All are off limits to candidate's opponents during a Presidential Debate, if said opponents wish to stay safely within the confines of good taste.

Her age has no more to do with it than the nature of the personal information... other than the fact that if she were a minor it would have been even MORE distasteful.

I don't know why it's surprising anyone that one foolish line would have such an impact either.

A few years back, millions of people lined up to throw a potatoe at this guy:





He had a promising career, and even had a broad following him to make him President in 96'.























But, it wasn't to be. A single unnecessary silent e, and they cast him out to sea.

1,000 years from now, the shortest of summaries of his career will likely contain that single non-word as an explanation of why his career had suddenly reached its peak. (See: There is nothing "Republican" about focusing in the spotlights on the most trivial of matters. It is just politics.)

Sometimes you don't even have to get a word out at all, before an ill-timed utterance sends you packing with a black eye, wounded pride and a terrible stigma that will follow you around for all eternity.

This guy had a promising career in politics one minute,
AAAAAAAAAhhhggg and it was all over.

Thank you for clarity, OBill.

Yes I'm in love with OBill I think. I wish I could make as much sense. (No worries, love,....my hubby won't let me date and I'm pretty crazy about him too. )

Thank you for the kind words, Foxy. Btw, do you or does anyone know if Dan Quayle still has that broad following him?

LOL, no I don't, but Mrs. Quayle probably put a stop to it.

Sorry to interrupt this shmoozefest but Bill, you must not have read the fine print on your rear view mirror.
" Politicians appear much larger than they really are."

Things Dan Did
Dan got into law school through an experimental Indiana University program intended to offer `equal opportunity' to minorities, the economically disadvantaged and other students of different viewpoints and backgrounds.

Dan Quayle had a trip planned to Beijing, but was worried because of the turmoil at that end. His security advisor however informed him that it was pretty safe for D.Q. as, ``They are only harassing intellectuals''.

Republican activist Dana Reed said he was amused recently when he received an unsolicited certificate of commendation signed by Vice President Dan Quayle. The honor was awarded to Reed as ``a champion of the traditional American values of family, faith, hard work and morality''. Reed quipped, ``I'm twice-divorced and 'Murphy Brown' is my favorite TV show'' (reported July, 92 by the Orange County Register)

On 10/11/88 Dan Quayle held a pumpkin next to his head. (reported in Esquire 8/92)

On 6/13/89, Dan Quayle posed in El Salvador holding a grenade launcher. Unbeknownst to him, it was aimed at his elbow. (reported in Esquire 8/92)

Quayle was very enthusiastic about signing author Tom Clancy to the National Space Council as an unpaid consultant (see his quote re: Red Storm Rising). Clancy, however, was not Quayle's first choice; that honor went to famed aviator Clutch Cargo. A plan to approach him and offer him the position was scuttled when it was discovered that Mr. Cargo is a fictional character. (reported in The New Republic, 7/3/89)

During the White House Easter Egg Roll of 1991, Quayle signed autographs using only his finger. He had prepared pre-signed cards which his aides handed out while he made signing gestures. This allowed him to move briskly and efficiently through the crowd, said his spokesman.

Dan Quayle, in April 1991, was concerned that his advisors may be getting out of touch with `Real Americans'. In order to combat this, he suggested that they read People magazine.

On 8/13/91 lawyer Dan Quayle tells the American Bar Association that the US has too many lawyers. He is quickly scolded by another speaker. (reported in Esquire 8/92)

While discussing the terms of the vice-presidential debate, Quayle's aide suggested that `props' be allowed, mainly because the Vice-President wanted to read directly from Al Gore's book on the environment, `Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit'. Gore's people agreed, saying that the Senator would then use a potato as a prop. Quayle quickly abandoned the proposal. (reported in The NY Times, 10/6/92)

It seems that Dan had let his Indiana driver's license expire in August of '90, and he had to take the written and driving tests when he returned to Indiana. His staff was unable to exert enough influence over the DMV to get them to waive the test provisions.

In his last days as a lame-duck vice president, Dan Quayle spent almost two-thirds of the residential entertainment money that was to last Al Gore most of this year. In less than three months, Quayle spent $57,259 of the $90,000 entertainment fund for 1993. (Scripps Howard News Service, 5-28-93)

All in good fun little buddy...

What makes you think she was?

If it was actually foolish a la potatoe, fine.

Bill, I've been curious -- if this was so patently objectionable, upsetting, below the belt, etc., why didn't you say anything at the time? We were discussing the debate live, and your comment in the moments after that one were "who dressed these guys, anyway?" You didn't say, omigod, what did Kerry just say? You didn't express any shock, dismay, or disgust AT ALL. Your next comment was about Kerry, "Very compelling. He's getting better at appearing human each time we see him."

Meanwhile, during that debate Bush said something we all agreed was stupid, tactless and graceless about the major media, (among many other large and small gaffes), but that's not what has stuck.

nimh has talked about the post-debate debate and that is what I think is incredibly stinky about this. It was manipulated and orchestrated and people are falling for it.

It's a game, and if the Republicans are better at it, the Republicans are better at it. But it's a stupid, lowest-common-denominator game and I find the notion that it can actually have an effect on the election abhorrent.

We can never forget Dan Quayle....

....

....

no matter how hard we try.

but the trying is what defines us...... :wink:

Can you bring a quote by M. Cheney, establishing she wasn't upset over it? Just because she hasn't said something doesn't mean she isn't offended.

I don't know anyone who heard Keyes' hateful comment, and wasn't offended, and incredulous. I think he got away with it because he's black. I've seen so many heads roll (with white faces attached) for MUCH less vitriolic speech than Keyes'. "Sinner" wasn't the worst of it.

Keyes may be the worst gaff the GOP made in this election. He is passionate, articulate, and intelligent, but he is also over the top in extremist views including his views of gays. That coupled with the whole carpet bagger image was a really, really dumb move. And yes, his remark was insensitive and would have been unexcusable for most Republicans. I don't know anybody who has condoned it.

As far as Kerry's remark goes, he could have gotten away with it if he had referred to his own friend or relative. But to refer to a daughter of an opponent in this way, he strongly appeared to be outing her in an unkind and demeaning way.

Did I give you the impression I was a Quayle fan? The only thing funnier than an image of Dan Quayle actually trying to read Gore's book in front of an audience, is the image of Gore just holding up a potato when he finished.

Soz, like I just told Squinney a few posts back, "I barely noticed it when it happened." I don't think it's a big deal at all. But my opinion isn't Kerry's problem anyway. I'm enjoying the debate because of the quality of opposition and I'm amused by the folks holding the seemingly untenable position that he did nothing wrong. Big deal to me? Nope. However, it would appear that it's a much bigger deal to some. Frankly, I didn't bother forming an opinion until it came up again. Once I thought about it, I recognized the error. The more I thought about it, the clearer it became.

I agree with you completely that political pettiness shouldn't have such drastic effects. If people really paid, attention Ross Perot would have eliminated the 2 party stronghold... and we wouldn't have these pathetic choices in the first place. But, muck throwing has probably always been an integral part of campaigns for as long as there have been elections.

I would never have given this a second thought myself. But in retrospect, I'd wager John Kerry's and Bush's team alike probably had their theoretical reactions and counter-reactions to this and hundreds of other trivial details all mapped out in advance. Bush's team won the Big Stuffed Animal when Kerry's team, or possibly just Kerry himself, made a costly error. Don't know if you saw my chess analogy earlier but when one side gives away a piece, it's exploitation time for the other. I agree, it is a sorry state of affairs to see the little things take center stage, but try not to spend too much time shouting at the rain. It's not going to change any time soon.

Neither side really wants it to change… they just want to win. How else do you explain anyone who loves democracy agreeing with legal actions to try to keep presidential candidates off ballots? That is a hypocrisy that really gets my goat. That is the dirtiest of pool and most everyone is in denial about it. What can ya do?

I meant to respond to this too. It has not been manipulated and orchestrated. It has been pointed out. Drawing attention to a flaw is not the same as making one up. One reason they may get more mileage out of this spin is they didn't have to manipulate it or orchestrate it… Just identify it and let people make up their own minds.
And they have.