0
   

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 07:48 am
If such propositions to amend were being considered, they'd carry more weight? Rolling Eyes How hard are you trying to miss the point?
(Point = Mary's decision, not yours, mine, or John Kerry's. Idea)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:05 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If such propositions to amend were being considered, they'd carry more weight? Rolling Eyes How hard are you trying to miss the point?
(Point = Mary's decision, not yours, mine, or John Kerry's. Idea)


or george bush's.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:38 am
Gonna tear those damn googly eyes out...I swear


...smile...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:39 am
many serious issues to worry about and now up to page nine about this non issue...just goes to show....PEOPLE LOVE LESBIANS....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:46 am
Re: The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems
CerealKiller wrote:
Personally I think it's dirty politics when Kerry and Edwards continue to bring up the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. It isn't any of their business, but yet they keep talking about it.

I wish Cheney would have put Edwards in his place by saying his daughter's sexuality was none of his business.


The dems have hurt themselves with this one and I suspect it's mainly by showing the country how obviously they react to certain kinds of stimuli with canned formulae. Who would want one of Pavlov's dogs for president of a large country?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:50 am
Re: The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems
gungasnake wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
Personally I think it's dirty politics when Kerry and Edwards continue to bring up the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. It isn't any of their business, but yet they keep talking about it.

I wish Cheney would have put Edwards in his place by saying his daughter's sexuality was none of his business.


The dems have hurt themselves with this one and I suspect it's mainly by showing the country how obviously they react to certain kinds of stimuli with canned formulae. Who would want one of Pavlov's dogs for president of a large country?


Or perhaps, dirty as it was, it was an attempt to point out the Republicans stance on gay marriage. The dems may have hurt themselves, but there was a point there. None of this is acceptable though.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:51 am
I think this whole subject is nothing more than the starting pistol for the home stretch of this election. It's Republican strategy. Make a big deal out of this one thing so that it is the only thing that people remember about the debates. Again, repaint Kerry as someone other than the person we saw making a fool out of the president.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 09:05 am
FreeDuck's got it.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 09:07 am
Re: The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems
gungasnake wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
Personally I think it's dirty politics when Kerry and Edwards continue to bring up the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. It isn't any of their business, but yet they keep talking about it.

I wish Cheney would have put Edwards in his place by saying his daughter's sexuality was none of his business.


The dems have hurt themselves with this one and I suspect it's mainly by showing the country how obviously they react to certain kinds of stimuli with canned formulae. Who would want one of Pavlov's dogs for president of a large country?


preferable to one of Exxon-Mobils lap dogs.......
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 09:10 am
FreeDuck wrote:
I think this whole subject is nothing more than the starting pistol for the home stretch of this election. It's Republican strategy. Make a big deal out of this one thing so that it is the only thing that people remember about the debates. Again, repaint Kerry as someone other than the person we saw making a fool out of the president.


precisely. the repubs will use the shotgun method for the next three weeks, firing shot after shot of denigrating statements and "discoveries" in the hope that one or two stick to the wall....because their boy can't win on his own non existent merit......meanwhile you're all welcome to join me in a heartfelt video tribute to lesbians this weekend. Get a babysitter, this is not for the kiddies.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:32 am
Them rolling eyes can pretty pretty aggravating, can't they Panz? :razz:Laughing But, they weren't the point either. Rolling Eyes
:razz:Laughing

Ya'll are correct to assume the Republicans will milk this mistake for all it's worth. If the roles were reversed, the Democrats would do the same. That's how the game is played.

In chess if you make a tiny error, say giving me a single pawn advantage... I will immediately begin trading everything else off the board to exploit the mistake as much as possible. That's how the game is played.

Absent from your criticism that the Republicans will employ this obvious, effective strategy; is the realization that the mistake couldn't be exploited if it wasn't made in the first place. John Kerry made a mistake by disrespecting Cheney's daughter by calling undo attention to something that is none of his business. He compounded it by not acknowledging what could have been called a simple misunderstanding... and defending it instead. Many of you are compounding it as well by denying the simple truth. That is certainly keeping the debate going, no?

He's in a spot... The "damage control" solution might be to say something like, "Mary Cheney, I apologize if I offended you. That was certainly never my intention." But to do that, he admits he was wrong... To not do it; is no good either, because that's to not admit his obvious wrong.
Lose/Lose situation, created by a foolish statement.

Somebody on John Kerry's team dropped the ball... and I bet whoever it is, he's soaking up some serious heat for it internally.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:40 am
The gay community will think the bush team is making a mountain out of a molehill......

The homophobes and "Good Christians" will side with bush against Kerry.

So, who's the loser?

Everyone for paying attention to this instead of jobs, education, healthcare, terrorist and global concerns.

Wake up folks.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:50 am
The gay community is full of individuals who will make up their own minds, much like the Good Christians. You're probably right about the homophobes though, because Kerry is pretty girly.:wink:

If you really believe either of these posers are going to improve "jobs, education, healthcare, terrorist and global concerns", than all issues that sway votes are of paramount importance. One must first be elected King before he could possibly make a difference.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:51 am
Does anyone know what Mary Cheney thinks about this yet?

You know, the Republican Unity Coalition board member, which has been actively seeking "to make homosexuality a 'non-issue' in the GOP the GOP and compares opposition to homosexuality to racism"? Who as Squinney mentioned back there brought her life partner to the Republican National Convention:

Quote:
"It's been widely known for a long time that she's gay and not shy about it," says Elizabeth Birch, HRC executive director, interviewed Monday in Philadelphia where she attended a luncheon to honor gay Republicans. "I think she's between a rock and a hard place. The issue now will be whether she's locked in the vault -- literally or figuratively," Birch offered.


If she has no problem with it, I don't see how anyone can get upset about it. If she has no problem with it, her father getting flustered by it is his own problem. She's in her late 30's. (35 in an article I saw from a few years ago.) She's not a kid. It's not for her father to decide if she SHOULD be upset by it.

I've been looking for any statements from her, haven't found one yet. I'm surprised, a bit, as it would seem a slam-dunk, a great way to help her father. That she has said nothing means either she can't bring herself to do it or that she doesn't want the spotlight -- the latter is unlikely for the aforementioned board member and former gay community liaison for Coors, as well as the current head of her father's campaign team. (Again, not a kid, people.)

If she comes out and says "it didn't bother me, it was valid", THAT would be the huge story. I doubt it would happen, though that would be nice.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:55 am
Well Bill I could personally give a **** less one way or another....I'm speaking only for myself of course.....but don't you think this ranks low down the list of our concerns or should?

Somebody in politics makes a remark alleged to be shitty and below the belt by the other side? Is this news? Is this important? Will this ever happen again and has it ever happened before? Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

PS sorry about the rolling eyes...didn't mean to jump into your area... Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:28 am
Soz, you are still missing the point. This precedent shouldn't be decided on by Mary Cheney either. The line that was crossed was in using someone's offspring as a cheap shot against a political opponent. Gay isn't really the issue. It could have been a disease, a birth defect, obesity, drug arrests, or maybe she's a communist, a fascist, a Republican, a Democrat or a Liberal abortionist who is also a Branch Davidian... All of these personal things about someone's offspring could be brought up to embarrass a candidate for one reason or another. NONE of these things, does said candidate have any control over when it comes to their offspring. None of these things have any bearing on his candidacy. None of these things are anyone's businessÂ… at least not as the off spring of someone else. It is in bad taste for any candidate to use such personal stuff about another's offspring as a weapon, period. You can bet your last buck the press and the sleazy paparazzi "photo journalists" will do there best to deliver this personal information anyway... but we should be able to expect a little more tact and a little more class from our candidates for President. (Before anyone goes nuts with Bush gaffs, let me pre-empt by stating a million wrongs don't make a right.) I hope I didn't obscure my point to much: When it comes to etiquette, the specific reactions or opinions of the Kerry's, Edward's, Bush's or Cheney's (all of them) are less important that the precedent itself.

It is a matter of poor etiquette, judgment and taste to exemplify your points by parading personal facts about your opponent's offspring in front of a Nationwide audience. No impartial person could reasonably deny this. To be fair in your judgment, the names of the innocent and guilty must as interchangeable as the nature of the personal facts when setting the precedent. I don't believe many of your positions could stand up to such scrutiny.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:36 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Well Bill I could personally give a **** less one way or another....I'm speaking only for myself of course.....but don't you think this ranks low down the list of our concerns or should?

Somebody in politics makes a remark alleged to be shitty and below the belt by the other side? Is this news? Is this important? Will this ever happen again and has it ever happened before? Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

PS sorry about the rolling eyes...didn't mean to jump into your area... Laughing
Laughing I absolutely agree. It is roughly the least important issue that's come up so far. A tiny mar on Kerry's overall character, no more... But, politics is perception and as long as the news talks about it, it will remain a factor in the race. Both sides have done worse things in the past and will do worse things in the future. I'm only arguing about it because of the quality of opposition. ( Frankly, I'm amazed by who's arguing the wrong side, IMHO)
My preliminary conclusion is that we can all be bitten pretty hard by the wishful thinking bug. Smile
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:38 am
But how was it a cheap shot? Edwards' disagreement with Kerry on something (I don't remember what, can look it up) was brought up by Bush or Cheney. When a debator is trying to show that his side is right and the other side is wrong, it's legitimate to say "hey, even a guy on your side thinks you're wrong."

That's what the reference to Mary Cheney was about. And again, you keep talking like she was outed. It was already explicitly discussed in the veep debate, no resulting brouhaha. (Why not?) The personal facts had already been "paraded". They were relevant -- there is a direct A-> B-> C. A, Cheney has a lesbian daughter. B, this fact means he is against DOMA, contradicting his own record (highly conservative when it comes to gay/lesbian issues), which he has freely said himself. C, this break with Bush -- the break with Bush -- is a prime target for Kerry and Edwards.

What do your last two sentences mean? I've read them several times and genuinely don't get them.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:39 am
Complete agreement on the relative importance.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:41 am
I think proponents of the public outing are missing the point. Its not gayness. Its the right to privacy of children of candidates, and ripping that privacy for political gain.

If the issue was drunk driving, and Bush had said to Gore during a televised debate, "Yeah, like Albert, Jr's drunk driving offense, I think the Gore family well knows the problems associated with this drunk driving..." Everyone would be completely aware that Bush was trying to use Gore's drunk driving history for political gain.

Bush would be open to the same criticism Kerry has opened himself to.

It is a cheap ploy.

OBill is completely correct. Trade out the issue and the politician for a fair and balanced critique.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 11:07:39