The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

"Sometimes, before opening up to insult others, it's a good idea to have at least a tiny clue what you're SHOUTING about"

Would make an excellent quote.

You should needlepoint it onto a tea cozy........it would be a nice Father' s Day gift....

Nice teeth.

Don't get too hot Bill, or we'll be having fondue for dinner

Remmber some months ago, a Kerry daughter went to the Cannes Film Festival wearing a see through outfit exposing everything including her bare breasts, naval, and bikini panties? And this same Kerry daughter has been reported to have posed for Playboy.

It isn't as if she hasn't shown publicly that she is pretty uninhibited regarding nudity and exhibitionism.

Now in a debate, if the Libertarian candidate had referred to John Kerry's daughter, who appears exposed in public and has posed for Playboy, would say....whatever.....would that be okay? Or would it be gutter politics? If Kerry wanted to cite what somebody gay thinks, why didn't he use one of his own gay friends that he actually knows rather than an opponent's daughter who he doesn't?

I have to agree with Lynn Cheney. For Kerry to 'out' Cheney's daughter in that way was gutter politics and was low.

nimh, tell me about it. The only thing I can make sense of is that people have been looking for an excuse to dislike Kerry, and if that's true, that's his failing. But it's a sorry excuse.

I keep adding quick posts here that I think will put the lid on things -- uh, the moderator asked! Uh, she's a gay/lesbian activist! -- but that's not happening. So here's my more thorough response, would love if it's my last one on the topic but know better than to promise as much.

First, all of the analogies so far have been to inherent negatives. The abortion example has some aspects going for it, but it still doesn't work because nobody is FOR abortion as a procedure. Everyone thinks it's sad and unfortunate and really, really shouldn't happen -- where people disagree is whether someone should have the right to do it anyway, IF it comes to that. Unless it is in the case of rape, which is itself as negative and personal as you can get, abortion results from personal failing -- not taking precautions, not being prepared first financially, not being prepared first emotionally, etc.

Does homosexuality result from a personal failing?

Here's my analogy, which needs some stretching to work -- it's called to mind by the equivalency given to racism by the Republican Unity Coalition. Assumptions:

- Edwards has an adopted daughter, 32 years old (I really think the age of Mary is important here, she's well into adulthood), who is black. She has done a lot of activism, including serving on the board of the Democratic Unity Coaltion (fictional) with the stated purpose of making race a "non-issue." Before that she served as head of minority outreach for Miller.

- Kerry is against affirmative action, and Bush is for it.

- Edwards, having spoken to his daughter on the issue, has said publically that he is in fact for affirmative action, based on his conversations with his daughter and his recognition of how racism affects her life. However, he will support President Kerry in his opposition to AA.

That's the background.

During the veep debates, the moderator asks Edwards about his position. He reiterates that personally he is for AA, but supports Kerry on it. Cheney responds with praise for um Diane, Edwards' daughter, but then goes on to say why AA is important.

Then, during the presidential debate, the moderator asks Kerry about whether African-Americans really still need extra help to achieve, whether there has been enough time for equality to have been achieved. Kerry says he just doesn't know, and reiterates that he thinks it's time for people to be treated equally. Then it's Bush's turn, and he says, "I think if you asked Diane Edwards, she'd say that there is still a need for Affirmative Action today."

That would really bother you? The Diane Edwards who has put herself in the public eye, advocated on this subject, been acknowledged in public as a basis for her father's difference with Kerry on the subject. That would be such a terrible thing?

Note, I appreciate that the rhetoric has been stepped down from "attacking" to "tactless." But part of the point of the debates are to rattle the other side. That was what Cheney was trying to do when he totally bald-faced lied about Edwards' attendance at the senate and whether he'd met Edwards before. (3 times on the record, Cheney has presided over the senate as often as Edwards -- twice --, and Edwards has an excellent attendance record.) Wasn't it a little "tactless" for Cheney to blatantly lie in Edwards' face?

I don't think it was the finest moment of the debate -- my reaction here at the time was that Kerry didn't react strongly enough -- but I think making any kind of a firestorm out of it is absolutely ridiculous.

I response to the paragraph I bolded.

That would only be true if one thought posing nude for playboy and dancing in semi transparent clothing the same as being gay.

Since it was discussed once before in the VP debate without a lot of fuss and bother and since both cheney and his daughter have discussed it in public; I honestly don't see the big deal.

LOL!! Poor guy must be exhausted!

Sozobe writes:


Amen to the firestorm. It is properly noted that Kerry was opportunistic and insensitive, but who isn't going to be opportunistic and/or insensitive during a 90-minute extemporaneous debate? Even when debating for fun.

It's the nature of the beast however to seize on one 'damning' phrase out of the multitude, that one phrase the pols think will really resonate to the American public, that one misquote or mistatement they can use to their advantage, and play it to the hilt until that's all anybody remembers from the debate.

Both sides do it. It's unfortunate, but both sides do it. The purpose is not to win on points, but to win on believability and likeability and/or make the other guy look awful.

what firestorm?

an entire platoon refuses a mission....rove testifys before the grand jury....we're talking about a known lesbian....and in the bullpen a story about gin and raisins.....what a f*#king country.....

OK, I suppose the firestorm is over...in my mind it is. Foxy et al have made me see some points and the usual suspects have supported my opinions. I come away with knowledge...what could be better?

LOL. Always glad to be of assistance Panzade.

:-)

I don't wan't people to think I was lying about not being a homophobe, but I really do prefer it when women talk to me that way. :wink:

Sozobe, I'd say the "black daughter" analogy is a little too gentle... just as the abortion example is a bit too harsh. None are perfect... but all apply. Here's why:

Did you see my response to Joe's post?... it wasn't all in fun. People who consider gayness a negative do have votes as valuable as yours or mine. Joe suggested that's why Kerry said what he said and I agree. But, if that's true, then it also has to be true that analogies to other things that are perceived bad are valid.

No one is suggesting New Rules... We're simply suggesting that what he did was in bad taste... because it was. He tried to harm Bush by drawing attention to Mary Cheney's homosexuality. It matters not, that you and I see nothing wrong with lesbianism. It does matter that a large number of vote carrying bigots do. Kerry, apparently, and IMO correctly, assumed that most of those bigots would be in Bush's corner... and presumably, that's why he chose to name the Vice President's daughter.

That, my friend, is dirty pool. That is exploiting his opponent's daughter's sexuality, as a negative, to an audience that views it as a negative... on purpose.

What he didn't consider; was that with a little prodding, a much larger group (than his targeted bigot group), would recognize the distasteful dirty play and cry foul! Having come straight from the horse's mouth, instead of cleverly through an emissary, that's high-octane fuel for the spin masters, so of course they ran with it... that's what they do.

I'd bet big money that many years go by before another Presidential candidate tries to use his opponent's daughter as a weapon.
And that's good. It was a cheap shot.

I think the more pertinent part was to play up the fact that Cheney disagrees with Bush on DOMA. (And he does, JW, he's supporting him anyway because he's the prez, but he disagrees.)

<shrugs>

I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this one. I don't think it was intended in the "ew his daughter's a lezzie, you conservatives gonna vote for a guy whose VP has a daughter who's a lezzie?" sense, I think it was intended in the "this must be a pretty bad idea if his own Vice President disagrees with it" sense.

<shrugs again>

Firestorm-worthy?

I wouldn't say firestorm worthy, no. If Kerry keeps slipping, it can't be just because of this. Was it you who said people were looking for a reason to not like him? I think the opposite. Many people are looking for a reason to like him (because they don't like Bush), but they're coming up short. I suppose with these folks, the smallest straw could break the camel's back.

Is it really affecting Kerry's poll numbers? Is the dip real?

If so, it isn't the GOP regulars driving it. And, not the Demparty regulars obviously. Looks like the indies thought it was a serious negative.

Oh, rereading your post, Soz, this just occurred to me: If he was simply trying to show the division between Bush and Cheney: Wouldn't it be at least as effective to open with "I agree with Dick Cheney... "... Wouldn't that have delivered that part of the blow just as effectively (without the potentially inferred slight)?