Not really. The question was about whether homosexuality is a choice. It was a twofer -- if you talk to actual people who are gay or lesbian, you're going to come away thinking it's not a choice. AND, Dick Cheney realizes this and so he opposes DOMA. Mary Cheney contains both concepts -- real person/ human face on it, plus Dick Cheney's position.
Bill wrote
Quote: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.
Bill: No!! What I
suggested was the Bush people were afraid of how their own religious base would take the information, not that Kerry said what he said in order to take advantage. I think Kerry was speaking genuinely about how he views homosexuals, which was the question, that they are who they are because of who they are. How the religious right perceives the mention of Cheney's daughter's lesbianism is Bush's problem, not Kerry's, unless they try to make it Kerry's problem which is what they are doing with all this aggrieved, angry reaction.
Liberals don't care who or how you love as long as you bring love into the world.
...which brings me to a third layer of meaning I hadn't previously considered, which is actually quite positive... that gays and lesbians are not all leather-wearing, boob-baring extremists, they're also perfectly nice normal Republicans like Mary Cheney -- why deny her the right to marry?
Let's not forget that Mary Cheney was NOT allowed on stage with the rest of the Cheney family at the end of the RNC national convention.
This is how these Republican conservative bastards feel about homosexuality in this country. Plain and simple.
Why didn't the Cheney's lay in on Alan Keyes when he referred to Mary as "a 'selfish hedonist' because she is a lesbian." (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040901-093347-1067r.htm)
When Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney in the most complimentary of terms in the vice presidential debate and received a thank you from Cheney, it was o.k. by Lynne and the rest of the Republican operatives. But when Kerry does the same thing, it's considered a vicious attack and dirty politics, and it speaks VOLUMES about these idiots currently running the country. They are so desperate and paranoid that they'll lose religious voters.
These bastards have GOT to go, and they will this November 2nd.
Viva la Kerry!!!
Soz: That is exactly the question that conservatives cannot bring themselves to answer because they would have to agree to the term -
normal.
In reverse order... I'm on your side on that Sozobe and Joe... If people who love each other want to get married, I can't imagine how that could hurt anyone else. Bush is wrong.
Joe, "Bush's problem" is Kerry's advantage. One can't go up without the other going down. I apologize if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth... I didn't mean to. I was just reflecting on the other side of your comments. This paragraph specifically struck home.
Joe Nation wrote:To them, homosexuality is a sin and the mere mention of it and it's connection to the VP might be enough, not to get them to vote for John Kerry, let's not kid ourselves, but it just might be enough to get them to stay home on election day.
The Kerry camp no doubt knows this too... so in doing anything that exploits it, or even appears to exploit it, they should also be able to predict the response. My guess is they did... but they underestimated the effectiveness of the indignant reaction ... or perhaps they were three moves ahead and thought their "they are just grasping at straws now people" response to the reaction would push them further ahead? I don't know what they thought... but it almost looks like they didn't.
I think they were thinking in debate terms, to get as many layers of meaning in as few words as possible. If you can say something that has three layers of meaning in one minute, it's like spending three minutes on three things. And every second counts in a debate.
So I think the layers they were thinking of were, human face (general), Dick Cheney's opposition to DOMA, and who are we to deny nice normal people like Mary the right to marry?
I mean, that's the obvious response in so many ways. Do you think homosexuality is a choice? Obvious thing is to bring it back to the human level, to actual people that you know. Better if it's someone that the audience has a mental picture of as well. So who? Ellen? One-note, she turns off a lot of people. Barney Frank? Political at least, but also turns off a lot of people. Mary Cheney is just the obvious choice for that question, with no malicious intent necessary. She'd already come up in the debates in this context. She's nice and conservative. She brought her life partner to the Republican convention fer chrissakes. For the purpose of putting a nice, non-alienating, relevant human face on the issue, she's perfect.
Thanks, Bill.
Btw the unofficial poll of some people I know think that Kerry goofed in mentioning her by name or at all. 7
5
Until you mention that people who are interested in politics already knew about her (watchers of the 2nd debate for example) then it becomes 10 what's the big deal and 2 well, I'm still pissed.
The conservatives (talk radio) are pushing this as if Kerry outed her, just the normal right wing fraudulent use of the public airways.
Not having Mary Cheney and her longtime companion on the stage at the convention was far more telling than any mention of what is now general knowledge. Unless one has been living on Mars.
Do you really think her parents or the Bush administration told her she wasn't welcome? Don't you think it's more likely she chose not to be there? I would think Cheney wouldn't abide such an insult.
I can't tell what she would abide. Seems like she's put up with a lot already.
(I'm curious about that too though, I know she ATTENDED the convention with life partner, but don't know what's up with being on stage...)
Here's the first thing I've found on it:
Quote:AMILY AFFAIR: There's still, apparently, something about Mary.
The lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney was conspicuously absent when her parents introduced Mary's sister, husband and four children to the Republican throngs after Dad's big speech Wednesday night. Mary sat instead with her partner, Heather Poe, in the VIP box across the hall, a choice she reportedly made herself.
Mary's stage fright might be forgiven. A few hours before, the delegates had cheered Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who led a fight in his state against same-sex marriage, touching off a national brawl that landed squarely in the party platform. On Tuesday, the delegates cheered Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., for heralding traditional marriage.
Not to mention that on Monday, Alan Keyes, running for a Senate seat in Illinois, called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist," and Rep. Edward Schrock, R- Va., announced his swift departure from Congress after a posting on a Web log said he was gay.
The vice president recently stood up for his daughter in public, departing from Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban lesbian and gay marriages. "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with," Cheney said.
But Chris Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the party platform and personal attacks from Keyes "have created a hostile environment in which Mary Cheney was either unwanted or uncomfortable on stage with her family. This is a prime-time example of the far right dividing American families."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/03/MNGL98JA8Q1.DTL
Curious, too. But, I actually meant her father wouldn't abide the insult to his daughter.
But, you just brought an article that says she chose not to be on the podium. If she wouldn't do that, surely she demured from speaking as well.
Which, to me, almost proclaims she HATED being used during the debate. Wouldn't you say?
You're right Soz... we're probably not going to agree. I honestly think you are probably 100% right on the those reasons... but you're refusing to recognize the 4th and final layer... and the order of intent might need some work. :wink: I suspect you just want Kerry to be as decent as you are and I can appreciate that. If he were, he'd be getting my vote.
Meant it Joe... It's there job to exploit any tactical advantage they can muster. I know that's not surprising you.
LW, I don't believe Dick Cheney would let anyone tell his daughter she can't be on stage. Even you must admit his debate answer to Edwards exuded dignity... for Him and Her.
This is the Republican's can-of-worms -- if they are offered the can opener, they have the option of not using it. Bitching and moaning about the mention of the daughter is somehow overly self-conscious and has a distinctly phony ring to it. They've called more attention to it than if they just kept quiet. Cheney could have nipped it in the bud by stating he was not happy his daughter was brought into a debate. He did not.
I think the "chose" could go either way. I mean, say that they don't want her up there. They're not going to say, "we told Mary Cheney we don't want her up there." They would talk to her about it and persuade her not to, and then say "Mary Cheney doesn't want to be up there."
Why did she go at ALL if she had no speaking role and wasn't going to be on stage? Why bring her life partner if she didn't want to make any statement at all?
People who don't want to have a public role or be associated with gay/lesbian issues generally don't join the board of entities like the Republican Unity Coalition...
Lash wrote:But, you just brought an article that says she chose not to be on the podium. If she wouldn't do that, surely she demured from speaking as well.
Which, to me, almost proclaims she HATED being used during the debate. Wouldn't you say?
That sure doesn't make her sound like a happy poster child, does it?
Apparantly that "dignity" was put on.
