The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I've gone on record against stuff to keep Nader off the ballot, btw.

-sigh-

I saw a Tom Tomorrow strip that I'd love to put here... I'll see if I can find it.

I'm not surprised, but I am happy to hear it.

I understand why people loathe his candidacy, but how they can justify denying him his right to run is beyond me. That really is disgusting.

It's the continuing struggle for how to win. The generalization which has some truth to it is that Democrats are the good guys, they play clean. Republicans are the bad guys, they play dirty. The bad guys win. So what do the good guys do?

I've started a few threads on this conundrum. I mean, Cheney's lie about meeting Edwards and Edwards' attendance record -- why isn't THAT being pounded into the ground? Why isn't THAT what people think of when they think of Cheney? I'd deplore those methods -- talk about issues, please!! -- but should fire be fought with fire?

(Tom Tomorrow site is down.)

Cheney's potshots at Edwards were solid, BS, but pretty standard. I bet he had a hammer waiting for Edwards if he'd have rebutted the claim on the spot... but the trial attorney wasn't going to dive in where he couldn't see the bottom. Once upon a time your generalizatin may have had some merit. Back when there was more division between the two parties... Republicans truly wanting lean government and Democrats truly wanting to help the masses... now those are just meaningless slogans. I just clipped this out of a story BBB posted



That's the real world... and we're making sure those are the only two voices too.

But I think Bush IS profoundly unfit for office! This is back to another theme that lots of us (nimh me Thomas come to mind) have talked about, the whole Jon Stewart thing:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=934283

I think that Bush IS profoundly unfit for office and that Kerry ISN'T profoundly unfit for office, and I base that on a whole lotta empirical evidence -- if one person says the world is round and one person says it's flat, I don't think we should just give equal time to the flat-lander when the empirical evidence shows the flat-lander is WRONG.

Oh whatever.

(That optimism of mine is at low ebb. I better go do some more campaigning.)

Did Cheney lie? Have you never been reminded by somebody that you had previously met, but you had no recollection of that person?

In my work I visit businesses at one year intervals. Occasionally the person I meet with will remember me from the year before, and I have their signature to prove it, but I honestly have no recollection of any prior meeting with that person.

Cheney attends so many functions and meets with so many people, I can believe his meeting with the young senator from North Carolina was an unmemorable occasion.

The difference is, I think Cheney supporters give him the benefit of the doubt there. Those opposing him don't.

I can't help but like Ralph Nader. He is an interesting old bird and I believe he actually holds the convictions he claims. I don't think the Dems or GOP need to discredit him though, because he is so outspoken, he does a good job of scuttling himself.

If he follows the rules and gets on the ballot, people should have an opportunity to vote for him.

Cheney lied.

My bad. Talking to me about these Bozo's can't be too encouraging. Maybe I'll be busier tomorrow (should be).

Kerry lied 20 times.

No need to apologize, Bill, though I appreciate that it would be your impulse.

Lash, Bush lied plenty as well. (Yes, he's an owner of the timber company -- and on and on.) Factcheck.org goes into all of that. I mention Cheney's because it was so bald-faced, without even any matter of degree hedging. Kerry says 200 bil instead of 120 bil, they're both big numbers. But Edwards' record has not only been not that great, with horrible being an exaggeration, it's been really good. There is no matter of degree truth to it.

bill said


Let's say that Party A seeks electoral advantage by saying nasty things about blacks and Jews knowing their voter base has a lot of racist sentiment and this will get them out to the polls because the other party, Party B, thinks blacks and Jews are OK. Then, in debate, the candidate from Party B mentions that a leader of Party A has a Jewish daughter.

Where does the moral ugliness reside?

blatham writes:


Even if your example was not an enormous strawman, which it is as neither the GOP nor the Bush campaign have ever said or implied nasty things about gays, it would still be demagoguery in using an opponent's daughter to alienate his base. In the case of the Kerry gaffe, few believe he was not intentionally attempting to alienate Bush's base who Kerry assumes is largely homophobic by 'outing' the vice president's daughter. It was a shameful ploy. Shameful on the face of it, and it backfired as he angered his own base with a homophobic emphasis and had no effect on Bush's base who are largely not homophobic.

If Bush was playing to the neo-nazi crowd, he wouldn't go blue in the face, saying gays deserve kindness and tolerance.

You should have seen the gay man on the street interviews a gay comedian had with blue-haired Republican ladies outside the Convention. Half of them hugged him--some said he should be able to get married if he chose--a few said they liked him, but they weren't about to let him get married... The largest block of GOPers don't hold gays in contempt.

Never in the history of the United States has the Constitution been altered or amended in order to restrict the rights of Americans, unless you count your right to purchase and consume alcohol and that was overturned quickly.

{ It strikes me now that Prohibition was another in the long line of religious ideas we have tried to legislate with bad result. The others being Blue Laws of various description, numerous Sin Taxes and, my favorite, the prohibitions against birth control, but I digress.}

This administration is so obsessed with the idea that gay couples might be recognized as part of the fabric of this nation it feels it is necessary to amend the Constitution of United States in a clear attempt to restrict any recognition of the normalcy of the gay relationship.

Tell me what you think that implies about gays besides something nasty.

Joe

It implies nothing whatsoever nasty about gays. It only seeks to protect the institution of marriage by traditional definitions.

Or in other words, exclude gays.

No. The rationale is that gays already have identical rights and protections as heterosexuals. Anybody, gay, straight, one legged, black, white, etc. etc. etc. of legal age has the right to mary any other consenting adult of the opposite sex. Therefore to allow gays to marry and deny other same sex persons that right affords gays special rights. The vast majority of conservatives say keep marriage within its traditional definition and make a new category of civil union, offering necessary protections and benefits, for ALL other same sex people who want it, not just gays.

The liberals/gays won't compromise on that point, however; therefore, nothing has been accomplished.

So, you are making the separate but equal argument?

Why not just allow anybody to marry whomever they wish regardless of gender?

For starters: That provides no explanation whatsoever for why 40% of Kerry's supporters feel the answer was inappropriate. (I know it's a hard question... that's why I chose it. :wink: )

Foxy answered you correctly in that Party A's daughter's religion is none of Party B's business so Party B will get the backlash of public resentment he attempted to shine on Party A. You cannot condemn racism (in your silly slanted example) by attempting to use it to your advantage... and pointing its hateful attention at your opponent's daughter... without a sizeable percentage of the public recognizing it for what it is. Sleazy.
It is using a perceived negative about your opponent's daughter for the benefit of an audience that sees it as a negative. That, my friend, is an attack on your opponent's daughter. Result: most of the people polled will think it inappropriate. Thanks for adding another example to illustrate its wrongness. :wink:





I think there is a misconception going on around here about homophobia, too. Homophobia is not a hate crime. It is not a crime at all. It may well be an example of ignorance in your opinion but that doesn't give you the right to tell someone else how they should feel. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say it can be a naturally occurring phobia. No one taught me to be homophobic as a kid, but I still was. When I encountered homosexuals, they just gave me the heebie-jeebies. Then, when I was in my early 20's, a homosexual hit on me in the break room at work … I bristled a little and said not interested as politely as possible. Dude kept staring throughout my break and frankly, it really disturbed me. Later on I learned he was taking over my boss's job. (Bear with me, this isn't a bad story and I'll try to keep it short.)

Turns out he was very, very good at his job… and as usual, admiration followed respect and we became friends. One day over drinks we endeavored to figure out what makes men homophobic (his idea). Well, the only answer I'd ever really had is that it's gross. Needless to say, that wasn't too helpful… or was it? He implored me to tell him why it was gross. Now this is getting gross again I'm thinking… maybe he's trying to come on to me again, no, he never stopped doing that… so that's not it… hmmmm… I say "I don't know… When I picture 2 men getting it on it just makes me queasy, I don't know why." Without hesitation, he says "ew, ick that is gross… why do you picture them getting it on? Do you picture Alice getting it on when she talks about her man?" (Just as gross.) I says "No……". And so ended the mystery of why this man was homophobic, anyway.

Anyway; back to the point. Before leaving the throng of the ignorant homophobes; I was already a decent guy. There was no hate… just a profound lack of understanding. That is not the crime some of you would make it out to be. If I were still uncomfortable around homosexuals, I wouldn't necessarily be violating anybody's rights to avoid them. I would certainly be well within my rights to feel uncomfortable around them, wouldn't I? And that's not to mention that the "good book" says a man shouldn't lay down with another man… and we are guaranteed freedom of religion, right? Now until my ignorance begins to infringe on your constitutional rights, it is my freedom we're talking about.

Now, I don't know about you foreigners, but as far as my countrymen are concerned, I'd wager my meager fortune that most of your families contain more ignorant homophobes, that are otherwise decent people, than they do homosexuals.

So, those of you who like to pretend that you would never associate with such rogues, and you know who you are, stop the pretentious BS. There is no shortage of people who think marriage should be a union between a man and a woman (John Kerry, for instance ). That doesn't automatically make them bigots. You guys think Dick and Lynn Cheney are disingenuous for their reactions? Check yourselves. Pretend it was George Bush saying "of course John Kerry wants to allow homosexual marriage, his daughter's a lesbian!"
At least half of you guys would crucify him for it, call him all kinds of bigots and demand an apology for the hateful speech and distasteful way he selfishly used Kerry's daughter with no remorse and on and on… and perhaps 40% of the Republicans would agree with the majority of the country that the comment was inappropriate and we'd be having pretty much this same conversation only the teams would trade some players.

Go ahead and pretend it isn't so. It's so.