The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Public attack? How on earth is this a public attack?

Kerry mentioned Bush's girls too, was that an attack?

And Bush mentioned Kerry's...

Mary Cheney was MENTIONED, as someone who has been very much at the center of this. Cheney disagrees with Bush. That's a story, and she comes up often, from many quarters (not just Dem). Kerry mentioned her in only positive terms (I guess unless you see homosexuality as inherently negative, which I don't think you do, Bill), and mentioned her in terms of putting a human face on the question of whether homosexuality is a choice.

Where was the attack?

The fact is Mary Cheney isn't the only lesbian on planet earth. Edwards can make his point about gay marriage or whatever without giving her special mention.

It isn't right for him to have made that decision for her, Sozobe.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It isn't right for him to have made that decision for her, Sozobe.

Bill, I dont get it - you're talking like he outed her. Thats not the story here. She was already out, and has made no secret of being lesbian. Everybody knew Cheney had a lesbian daughter.

He didnt force into the open something she was trying to keep hidden. He was remarking on something that was well-known, and said something complimentary about it. Only way one can find it un-complimentary is if one considers being lesbian itself something un-complimentary.

Everybody didn't know he had a daughter. Hell, everybody, doesn't know who Dick Cheney is, let who Mary Cheney is. Did you forget which country we're talking about?

Nimh, her sexuality is being debated on National Television every twenty minutes because of what John Kerry said.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Everybody didn't know he had a daughter. Hell, everybody, doesn't know who Dick Cheney is, let who Mary Cheney is. Did you forget which country we're talking about?

What I know is that Mary Cheney and her being lesbian came up in the veep debate, at length, and it came up in this debate. Now in proportion to "the country" you're talking about, with all those people who dont even know who Cheney is, the number of people who actually tune in to the debates and listen through it all, I'm guessing, was of a similar sort of scope for both. Now if it wasnt a big deal when it came up in the veep debate, why is it such a big deal that it came up in this debate?

Coming back to the same point, in response to:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nimh, her sexuality is being debated on National Television every twenty minutes because of what John Kerry said.

Nah, and this is where the cynism comes in. If her being talked about at length in the veep debate was no issue whatsoever and caused no ripples anywhere, it wouldnt have needed to have after this debate either. Proportionally more or less the same sort of audience. If it now has gone way beyond that, if it's now coming up in every second news show, its not because Kerry mentioned something complimentary about Cheney's daughter in one of the many questions. It's because it's been turned into the post-debate scandal to focus on. Now ask yourself, who made that move? Who's keeping the focus on this issue? In whose interest is it to have the post-debate debate be about this issue? To have it be a 'scandal'?

Basically, Kerry saying something nice about Cheney's daughter would in itself never have become a huge news story. But Miss Cheney lambasting Kerry immedately afterwards for being "not a good man", however, was bound to be catapulted into every news headline of the day. The Republicans, repeating how scandalized they are by Kerry's brutal invasion of the Cheney family's privacy to every reporter who wants to listen, have turned this into a scandal of sorts.

And I'm betting that the Bush/Cheney campaign is all too aware of the mechanisms at play here. Reporters after a debate are desperate for a catchy story. A scandal. Something more than for the third time in a row, "it was a fierce, informative debate, ended mostly in a draw with advantage to Kerry". And here come the Republicans accusing Kerry of a character sin that involves sex, family and politics. How can you resist the temptation.

Again, if it had just been Kerry saying something positive about the Cheney daughter in illustrating a point about acceptance, do you really think more than the odd columnist would even have written about it? Did you see big headlines about "Cheney has a lesbian daughter" the day after she was talked about at length in the Veep debate? It wouldnt have been a story, and Mary's name wouldnt have been "welded" to anything. But the wife of the politician accusing the other side's politician of being a bad person - now bang, there you have your story. And lots of Republicans banging to the same drum.

I wouldnt be suprised if the Republicans will be "keeping this story alive" with new indignant, on-camera elaborations about it to for days to come. What else are they going to talk about after three debate defeats, No Child Left Behind? Using a trumped-up scandal about Kerry being a vile person worked in August, why not try it again. But dont blame that single, pleasant enough sentence of Kerry's in the debate if, over days more of partisan commentariating on the issue, Mary Cheney does become a household name.

IFILL: 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.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.

And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds

EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq. Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry. I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships. But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage. This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

IFILL: New question, but same subject. As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it. Are you trying to have it both ways?

EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along. We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits. For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that. But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment. I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on. We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

main focus will be to help the RUC reach out to gay and lesbian voters, as well as build bridges to all within the Republican Party. This summer, she will work with us to build the RUC membership network across the country. Mary's experience, both in her past work at Coors and with the Bush/Cheney campaign, provides the RUC with a whole new level of judgment and political savvy. We are so proud to have Mary Cheney stand with the RUC

.