The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Is it not? Are you making a moral argument or an argument totally unrelated to moral issues and concerning itself only with pragmatic electoral strategies?

If your argument is entirely pragmatic, then I'm not much interested. Gains and losses that might accrue are not measurable and arguing them seems silly.

If your argument is a moral argument, or has a moral component, then neither you nor foxfyre are demonstrating anything like rational thought nor consistency, for the reasons I and others have already explained. The magnitude of moral failing, that is, of causing real and actual harm to others is not comparable. If Kerry is (in fox's words) a bad person for causing some harm or discomfort to Mary, then how utterly despicable does this make Lynne Cheney for the harm she personally has caused gay individuals through her support of gay-bashing religious movements?
That those individuals remain mostly unnamed or out of sight matters not at all. The harm to their lives is real.

Blatham, I've been arguing my position from the standpoint that Kerry was wrong to say what he did and why. At no point did I volunteer to defend George Bush or Lynne Cheney's views or actions on anything. Nor have I suggested that Kerry was worse than anyone else. You have a good argument in mind there, Blatham, but it wouldn't be with me... as we'd likely to find little to disagree on.

Regardless of what Bush or Mrs. Cheney have done to harm gay's, Kerry's comments were inappropriate and the introduction of all this other stuff into this topic are attempts to redirect the blame. Perhaps others (who disagree) will take you up on the tangents… but I've stayed pretty central on this thread with a single purpose: Pointing out the error in claiming Kerry didn't do something wrong to get this ball rolling. He did.
Let me be very clear: If Bush were the devil himself, that would have no bearing on whether or not Kerry's comments were inappropriate. They were inappropriate. If you don't disagree with that, than there's nothing for us to argue about.

His remarks were only inappropriate if there was some reason to be ashamed or embarassed over the fact that Mary Cheney was gay.

As there is no reason to be embarassed, there's no impropriety there.

Now, what the comment REALLY did was highlight the huge differences between Bush's soft-spoken moderate 'election-speak' and the hardcore religious right he relies upon for support. This sense of outrage that Kerry brought it up lies on the fact that they really ARE embarassed of her sexuality, as are many of their supporters.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn - you have no basis for those allegations......at least not as they relate to the posters here.

There was a thread some time back "Political Views" in which the gay marriage issue was covered.

To my recollection, not one person - left or right - had a problem with either gay marriage or civil union.

It really disturbs me when someone tries to speak on behalf of everyone.

In a nutshell - those of us who see his remarks as totally inappropriate don't have an agenda. It's not that complicated - the man was wrong!

Is that the third time you've posted that same thing Cycloptichorn? Perhaps now you can answer why 40% of John Kerry's supporters think it was inappropriate ... including A2K's own, BBB.
Hint: they're not blinded by hyper partisanship. If you read back through, you may notice that the best proponents of your argument didn't take such an extreme position.

I think is was not prudent for Kerry to mention Mary, especially in the way he did as it made it look like he was using her in an agenda and I don't believe that was his intent. It was a gaffe. Put up against Bush's many gaffes...is the horse dead yet? I think it just might show up on CSI -- who killed the horse? Suspects are aplenty here. Line up, we need your DNA.

LW...you forgot to say "This won't hurt one bit".

I don't know why public perception is so badly against this one, Bill. Public opinion doesn't have anything to do with my opinion that it's not wrong to call a gay person gay.

I assume that you are referring to me when you write the words 'hyper-partisan,' but this isn't even a partisan issue for me; I really don't see what is wrong with it.

Republicans talk all the time about Kerry's Billionaire wife, but that isn't seen as being wrong. So it can't be the fact that he brought family up; this goes on all the time. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY. So what's wrong with saying that someone is?

You can argue that it wasn't a good move, politically, I don't care one way or another about whether it was a good move or not. But what he said was not intrinsically wrong.

The fact that this is blown up into such a huge issue highlights the fact that while many (most) people claim to be accepting and comfortable around gays and lesbians, very few actually are... the social stigmatas haven't just gone away in a few short decades....

Cycloptichorn

=


I was just going to swab the inside of the mouth with a Q-Tip. I'll leave other methods up to your proctologist or gynecologist.

See, I'm being prudent but not prudish. OB.

No no no...I much prefer your swabbing mouth method. And will say no more here.

LOL LW...........I agree

Any time I see or hear (or read) a person use the term "inappropriate" makes me ask the question, "inappropriate to whom?" I don't agree that it was inappropriate. It was entirely appropriate and I agree with Cycloptichorm, it has served to highlight the irrational prejudice harbored in Bush/Cheney's voter base. That the Cheney's mentioned Kerry's reference to their daughter at all speaks volumes about the fact that they care more about pleasing their base than supporting their daughter and her homosexual choice of partners. Not only does supporting their daughter take second place, but protecting her privacy is out the window.

So Bill........I don't agree with your point. The fact that they may not have mentioned it since doesn't really count for much.

Thank you for this.......I agree.

FYI, I did comment out loud when I heard Kerry make the argument using Mary Cheney in the debate that it was a mistake on his part. But it was a strategic mistake, a gaffe, as LW said. Kerry should have lost a point for it, but for the Cheney's/Bush campaign to make a huge deal out of it is far more than a gaffe.............it's revealing of their tactics (which are no secret to anyone). They care not for anyone or anything other than getting as rich as they can while the sun is shinning on them.

We need to redirect the shinning sun from them to us, the American people. I'll be richer still if Bush wins. I'll make money with Bush and lose money, no doubt, if Kerry wins. But it's a price I'm more than willing to pay. If I'm all cozy and others are hurting because I'm so cozy, it's not in my best interest, not to mention the best interest of any of us. Bush and the majority of his voter base are among the most short sighted, selfish people I've ever known.

42 pages... ? ( ! )

Not bad for a red herring/diversion topic, eh?

That's 42 pages NOT spent discussing abysmal foreign or Domestic policies... or economic issues... or earpieces...

duplicate

bill

The great majority of the world's citizens (Israel the only exception) dislike and distrust George Bush and his administration, and they wish Bush to fail in this election believing that his adventures in Iraq, and the justifications for that, are wrong both morally and practically. Does this polling data settle whether or not Bush is wrong?

If you wish to hear me say that Kerry did something 'wrong', fine, that's easy enough. But taking a moral question and considering it in a vacuum isn't of much help in a situation such as we are looking at here.

Do I think Kerry would use such a tactic to gain votes? It's possible. Do I think someone in Carl Rove's staff would pass a note to Lynne Cheney in mid-debate suggesting she jump on Kerry in the manner she did, and that she goes along with it? It's equally possible. Do we have polling data on how many folks thought Lynne's response was 'inappropriate'? What would that tell us? Do I think that Rove's staff had developed narrative-lines and talking points long before the final debate in order to counter or distract if Bush was perceived to fail in the third consecutive debate? Yes, with certainty. Has this Mary Cheney item succeeded? Yes, quite well.

You're a good guy, and we disagree on little here. That little may be important however.

ps...just for fun, and as an indication of how absolutely nutty the US is becoming...

There are 13,000 British troops in Iraq.

There will be some 20,000 lawyers working for Republican and Democrat parties this election to prevent electoral fraud.

Cycloptichorn, you obviously haven't read the arguments you're criticizing or you'd realize that the word "daughter" was the important part of the "gaff"... not "gay". Kerry's wife will be representing the American people if he's elected, his daughter will not. Even so, you'll notice that neither Bush nor Cheney has said a single bad thing about her (and it's not like she isn't easy to target ). (For that matter, notice how Kerry and Edwards have layed off Bush's seemingly retarded offspring. ) The reason she gets a pass is; because many people would take any comment that could be perceived negative about her as an attack and would consider such an attack in poor taste coming directly from a candidate. It's not against any rules... it's just a losing strategy and is therefore seldom employed. Kerry must of thought he could get away with it. He thought wrong. Then when his campaign described Mary as "fair game" any illusions about his intentions should have vanished.
Your argument just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, Cycloptichorn. I went to some length earlier to explain why I'm not homophobic… to eliminate any doubt about that. Still, I have no trouble seeing the inherent wrongness in his comment, so it must not be about that. The folks sticking with the 2 and more wrongs do make a right strategy are losing less ground. :wink:

Blatham, what we disagree on, isn't this comment. It's on the Iraqi invasion and I think we've probably taken that as far as we can already on other threads. Your words about pre-conceived strategies to use such a gaff; echo my own from earlier in this thread, btw... so I think we're now in total agreement (on this topic at least :smile:).

Lola, I used the word "inappropriate" because that's what the poll asked. Foolish would have been my choice... and judging by your reaction... that's just a bit stronger but the same basic direction of your own. How can you blame the Cheney's for perpetuating what John Kerry started without admitting John Kerry started it? The GOP didn't convince 40% of Kerry's supporters the comment was inappropriate...
They didn't have to.

When a politician, Bill, supports policies that will hurt his own family members, that's a sign of a problem.

Bush and Cheney may not mention THK very often, but their cronies do on a daily basis. To suggest that Kerry has not been attacked re: his wife is ludicrous; it's been going on for months. The guys at the top just leave the dirty work for the 'pundits' on Fox News. It's analogous to the SBVfT attacks; the pres. didn't say them personally, so he can't be held to blame, but his supporters used that ammo to hammer at Kerry for months.

The uproar over what was said about Cheney's daughter wouldn't even exist if not for the fact that she's gay, and Kerry said it. Stop kidding yourself. He could have mentioned her in pretty much any other context and noone would have given a damn....

Cycloptichorn

I said the "2 wrongs" strategy was better Cyc... not good. :wink:

Focus man, focus. NO ONE is arguing the other side of this dribble. You are stating the obvious as if it somehow has anything to do with the discussion at hand. It doesn't. Political campaigns are more sleazy, distasteful tricks than anything else these days. That doesn't mean the public will excuse the candidates themselves.


You either haven't read what I've written or you don't understand it. I'm not kidding myself about anything. Neither is two thirds of the people polled including four in ten of Kerry's supporters. You've went an entire post here without ever once saying something relevant. (2 ears, 1 mouth).

This issue wouldn't be discussed at all if Lynn Cheney hadn't gotten up, as soon as the debate was over, and made a big deal out of it. Some may have discussed it.........and of course, if not Lynn Cheney, Rove would have put the idea into the mouth of someone to start up the diversion. But it was Lynn C. who started the ball rolling.

I don't care whether people, Democrat or Republican, think his comment was inappropriate or not........that is so not the point. The Cheneys are typical of the radical religious right.........they deliver mixed messages to their children and in the case of the Cheneys, to the American people as well. Their protests are mute, given their behavior. Poor Mary Cheney, cursed with parents like this.

Kerry's remark was only innappropriate to those who wish to conceal their own homosexual brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and mothers and fathers, from the voters who matter most to the GOP:

The religious conservative vote.

Christ, why do you think African Americans mostly vote Democratic?

This is just so plain and simple. Why can't neoconservatives understand this?