Redstate

no call for pointing out that gay people have parents!

no point in showing that they are human beings, not people to mock and condenm.

shame on kerry.  shame on edwards.  and shame on her for being a lesbian in the first place.

had she had appropriate amounts of shame she'd have stayed in the closet where she belongs and kerry wouldn't even know to talk about her that way.

....work on that, yes?  Elsewhere.

but http://andrewsullivan.com/ disagrees.

I don't care at all.  If Sullivan doesn't grasp why K/E mentioned her, we can only shrug at the blinding nature of single-issue fanaticism.

By jumping out in front of Kerry's statement, Lynne Cheney came across as defensive, or as if she had something to hide. She said Kerry's behavior was despicable, but she did not give out the good sound bites to explain why his behavior was despicable. Instead of anger at her daughter being exploited, the clips and quotes are vague enough to be interpreted by some as shame. The consequences are that Kerry is criticized for his boarishness, and possibly alienates some swing voters, but the media also talks ad nauseaum about the Vice President having a lesbian daughter.

What Kerry has done is, I fear, set a trap for the Republican Party. Many of them do not want to hear about Mary Cheney or hear various Republicans trot Mary Cheney out as a victim. There is no small minority of Republicans who not only oppose gay rights, but who consider homosexuality a curse and an abomination. I don't agree with their view, but I know that probably three-fourths of the party DOES agree. Every time Mary Cheney's name is mentioned, one or two more of those Republicans ponders staying at home, or voting for a third-party candidate. Bush's gray message on abortion (no 'litmus test', in his words) may also trouble some.

My sister in Minnesota called me up concerned about the President's response on the Supreme Court. I told her that she had absolutely no reason to doubt his plans for a pro-life federal-Supreme Court, and he was trying to appear moderate to contrast Kerry's ultra-liberal views. She calmed down, but are there others out there similar to her? Aside from the marriage amendment, Bush gave a mushy response on immigration. That may send up red flags to the easily riled evangelical or pro-border control wings of the party. The pro-border control wing have already been very tolerant this year; I was very alarmed that Kerry's answer came across as more conservative than Bush's answer. America supports more curbs on immigration in landslide majorities. If Bush had been more firm in opposing immigration, he would have won some of those silly snap polls. Pandering to a Latino vote is forfeiting millions of other sure votes for an unsure outcome.

Conservative Republicans may not be pleased to hear that the final and most important debate shifted from Kerry's looney left record to Bush's murky abortion and immigration responses, then nonstop coverage of the Vice President having a lesbian daughter.

Even in the Mafia they respect the families of their opponents, and leave them strictly off limits.  

This was gratuitously low class.  I wonder if the Log-Cabin Republicans will change their minds and endorse the President now?  One ticket, Kerry-Edwards, has consistently attempted to "out" not only Dick Cheney's daughter, but Republican candidates and staff members across the country.  

I found Kerry's remarks offensive, and hope gay Americans look at this man and realize that he doesn't give one damn about them!  

that everyone here seems to think that mentioning Cheney's daughter is gay is somehow a negative thing.

Is Cheney ashamed of his daughter?

I would never accuse you of obtuseness, although charity demands it now.

The shame lies not in Cheney's daughter, but in the motivation behind her repeated invocation by her father's opponents.

Tell me, really, why you think they're doing this.

GT's post misses (intentionally) the point  

that everyone here seems to think that mentioning Cheney's daughter is gay is somehow a negative thing.

Is Cheney ashamed of his daughter?

Kerry did NOT bring this up, and use "lesbian" instead of "gay" because he respects Cheney's daughter's choice.  If it wasn't for the pesky 2-minute rule we could have "enjoyed" Kerry outing family members of other Republicans as well.  

Kerry's lack of character was what got "outed".  Ashamed?  Kerry supporters should be ashamed of their candidate.  Period.

Just because a candidate's child has an issue in their lives relative to a debate question doesn't make it better than classless to bring up that child - shame or no.

Imagine, hypothetically, if it was a fairly well-known fact that one of the Kerry daughters had gotten an abortion... would it have been kosher for President Bush to bring that fact up in response to Schieffer's abortion question?

Of course not.  It would have shown a proclivity for the crassly political insult.  It would have been bad form.  And Kerry/Edwards have plenty of both.

What if, instead of invoking Mary Cheney on a question about homosexuality, Kerry had instead invoked George P. Bush and his Mexican mother on a question of illegal immigration?

"Why, look at the hypocricy of the Bush administration!  Here the President is, with a Mexican sister-in-law and half Mexican nieces and nephews, and yet he persists in staying on the wrong side of the immigration debate!"

That would be tantamount to race-baiting, just as Kerry and Edwards' statements were gay-baiting in the extreme.

I suppose they think this is good for them. Although another interpretation is that they want to show moderates that Bush and Cheney are hypocrites. I think this has as much effect on the "Log Cabin and friends" segment of the population.

But I don't think you've addressed my point. If Lynne Cheney is perfectly fine with her daughter's sexual orientation I don't see why she is so bothered by her being mentioned. Remember that Mary Cheney is not justa  llesbian but her previous job at Coors was based on her being a lesbian.

And maybe you and I saw it differently but I thought Cheney was sincere in thanking Edwards for his words.  

being gay with having an abortion?

It seems you've proven my point.

I was under the impression that Mary Cheney was public about her sexual orientation and that politicians had nothing to do with outing her.

As for outing other politicians, I see no reason to out any politician, particularly if their behavior is consistent with what they advocate. I look forward to the day when no one feels that they have to hide their sexual orientation if they are interested in political office.

There is definitely an activist group of gays that takes particular pride in outing politicians who are hypocrites on these issues, politicians who are opponents of gay rights yet are actively gay. I hardly condone the activists for it, but I can certainly understand why they are offended by the hypocrisy. If these activists happen to be primarily Democrats, it's because they feel that there is no room in the Republican Party for gays who are fighting for the same rights everyone else has. I am not aware of any mainstream Democrats who have engaged in outing.

Lynne Cheney came across as a mother defending her daughter.  Since when are candidates' kids "fair game" for nasty political smears?  I recall great media indignation at the "dog" slurs that went around re: Chelsea Clinton, and yet no similar reaction to Edwards and Kerry's hamfisted attempts to slam the square peg of Mary Cheney's sexuality into decidedly round hole questions.

I'd be absolutely livid if one of my kids, who has had little-to-nothing to do with my campaign was dragged into a debate and used as a club to try to beat me.  

What if Bush had said "My opponents motivations on calling for a 'global test' are almost as transparent as his daughter's dress at the Cannes Film Festival."  Would you think that JFK/THK would have a reason to be pissed?  I sure would.

It's called an analogy, not an equation.

Having an abortion in most of the US is looked upon as a bad thing and yes, there's a stigma attached to it.  Being gay does still have a stigma attached (although, I might wager, a much lesser one) at this point in the US.

However, Dems/Libs of all stripes are quick to remind us that sexuality and abortion are all about choice.  We should be free to choose what we do with our bodies and when and how and with whom we do it and anyone who says otherwise is a Nazi and a Fascist and is trying to put our wombs in a lockbox!

So why are they against Mary Cheney making a choice?  It's always been plain to me that Dick and Lynne Cheney sincerely love their daughter and, while they don't agree with her behavior or choices, their love is unabated.  Where is the hypocricy in having a lesbian daughter while at the same time saying that you don't want her to be able to marry her female partner?  Where would be the hypocricy in opposing abortion even though you have a daughter who had one?  I would think that, as first-hand witnesses to such behaviors and the consequences thereof, such people would be uniquely qualified to make statements and judgements about this issues.

There is no small minority of Republicans who not only oppose gay rights, but who consider homosexuality a curse and an abomination. I don't agree with their view, but I know that probably three-fourths of the party DOES agree.

Why yes, we all know that 3/4 of the Republican party have been introducing legislation to out-law homosexuality ... get gays fired from jobs and have them rounded up and put into re-education camps.

Substitute the word "black" for gay, which some Democrats also charge about Republicans, and it clearly demonstrates again it's the same slime charge that Republicans are out to oppress anyone that isn't rich, white, straight, Christian and male. So the Dems are pretty shameless about running ads on "black" radio stations on how the Republicans are out to keep blacks from the polls and keep black kids from education. The National Jewish Democratic Council runs a nasty web-ad dealing in the crassist of Christian v Jewish stereotypes (so nasty the Anti-Defamation League condemns it).

So it comes as little surprise that Kedwards would be shameless in their exploitation of Mary Cheney. Mary is not a woman, a person in her own right with talents and accomplishments of her own...oh no, she is GAY...she's a LESBIAN. Mary, for Democrats is to be defined by nothing else but her HOMOSEXUALITY

This sort of identity politics that comes almost exclusively from the left is the penultimate in reductive politicking in regards to individuals. In the 70's Kerry was quite blunt in his willingness to use "cripples" to gain media attention for his anti-war activities, so we shouldn't be surprised he's doing it with a woman who happens to be gay.

And it's even more egregious because Kerry then goes on to say he, too, believes marriage is defined as one man, one woman.

Being gay does still have a stigma attached (although, I might wager, a much lesser one) at this point in the US

The GOP thinks that. My point exactly. If it was Kerry that had the lesbian daughter and Bush mentioned it no one in the Kerry camp would care.

....is a red herring.  If Lynne Cheney is uncomfortable with her daughter, that's her business, not yours -- and it's not the place of K/E to make it a topic of public debate.

Give Cheney's comments last night, I think we know pretty well what he thinks of this shameless behavior.

Trevino writes:

Let's be perfectly clear on why this is happening. The two candidates on the Dem ticket didn't simply happen to bring up Mary Cheney ex nihilo -- they did so as part of a calculated effort to peel some small portion of Bush's base away from him. That portion being, presumably, the gay-hating ignorants who also watch televised 90-minute campaign events. This is surely a vanishingly small demographic.

Sorry, no cites, but I've been told that such pitches are actually intended for female voters in general (especially moderate, "swingable" women). GOP "intolerance" of homosexuals apparently turns them off. The fact that the example used by Kerry is, in fact, a woman, only serves to make such a strategy more effective (so the thinking goes). Swing voters are similiarly targeted when Kerry mentions stem cell research (again, apparently focus group research has convinced the Dems that their position on this issue plays well among moderates).

Regardless of whether or not it was strategically wise to bring up the vice president's daughter, my hunch is that Kerry's words will be perceived as overreaching, and gratuitous. And I suspect in the end they'll gain him no votes, and possibly backfire.

And I can't resist a word about Sullivan: he seems so palpably eager for a Kerry victory, one strongly suspects he's angling for a job in the Kerry White House.

 . . . both that a) Mary Cheney is and has been openly gay for quite some time, so nobody has "outed" anybody here, and b) she is an official for BC'04, so she's not exactly off-limits here?  Right?  

....of General Vlasov at this point.

I reiterate: what is hypocritical about the Bush administration's stance on opposition to gay marriage?  I don't understand your reasoning.  Because the VP's daughter is gay, he can't oppose the notion of destroying the institution of marriage so that his daughter can potentially marry her lesbian partner?

How about another analogy (note: not an equation. There's a difference.)?  Let's say that my brother went on a killing spree and ended up on death row.  Would I be a hypocrite for continuing in my support of the death penalty, simply becase my brother would be affected by it?  My reasoning behind supporting the death penalty is an ethical one that I've reached through careful consideration, and yet, in order to avoid charges of hypocricy, I should make a decision based upon my emotional attachment to my brother and contradict my sincerely-held views?

That, my friend, is rank hypocricy.

for nothing more than your sexual orientation..

"Oh..there's GT over there, let's wave at the [GAY/STRAIGHT] guy!"

"Yeah, I know GT, he's [GAY/STRAIGHT]."

GT, do you know any people who are disabled? Do you know how they feel when they are defined by nothing more than their disability?

"Hey, there's the wheelchair guy!"

This has not a friggin thing to do with PRIDE, this has to do with balance. Sexual orientation is not the be all, end all of who a person IS.

Jaysus on a Pony, I hate identity politics! Those who play it rob individuals of their uniquenss.

But then, that's what the Left is all about ... elevating the group over the individual.

Notice that Augustine's analogy only works if the characteristic being mentioned (abortion) is somehow shameful.

Change the analogy to something no one would be ashamed of (Mary Cheney's height say or the color of her hair or the city she lives in) and it collapses. And that, exactly, is my point.  

You would debate the fact that there is still a stigma attached to being gay for at least a portion of the population of the US at this point?  You're either uninformed or a disingenuous fool.

Please look at any polling done among Catholics, particularly in the Hispanic community, or in any of the African American churches.  Do you remember the press conferences held by black religious leaders in DC absolutely excoriating GLAAD, etc. for attempting to portray the quest for gay marriage with the civil rights struggles of the 60's?

Do you debate that there is still a stigma attached to being gay in the Muslim community?  What about amongst Evangelical Christians?

I'm not saying that people in these communities hate gays - I'm saying that they think there's something wrong with making that choice.  Most Christians I know condemn homosexuality as a sin, but do not believe that "God hates fags!".

So shut your pie hole.

While I agree that why L Cheney is bothered is her business the fact that she would be bothered is, IMO,indicative of something else.

I would simply point out that that group tends to vote for the GOP, not the Dems. It is the GOP that is bothered (ashamed IMO) by people mentioning Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.

Kerry would have never used that line against Gephardt, who also has a lesbian daughter.

And there lies the difference.

You're honestly going to claim, with a straight face, that blacks and Latinos vote majority Repbulican?  You're truly delusional if you think that.

GT: "If it was Kerry that had the lesbian daughter and Bush mentioned it no one in the Kerry camp would care.

If the situations were reversed EVERY NEWSPAPER in America would have a massive headline, above the fold, screaming: "President engages in gay-baiting tactics" (or worse).  

As it is the San Jose Mercury News (my local newspaper) EXCISED the quote from the paper!  They mentioned it nowhere!!  

If the situations were reversed the Dems would be screaming murder...and they would be right.  Kerry and the Dems know that there is still (regardless of party affiliation) a stigma attached to homosexuality.  Kerry's comments amount to: "Vote for us...we're not queer!"  

So what's next for Mr. Kerry?  A  graphic description of lesbian sex during his speech at the AARP today?  Let's see, he can start something like this: "As I look out at this crowd I see a whole lot of folks with traditional values.  A see a crowd that is probably turned off by the thought of two women having sex.  Did you know that Dick Cheney's DAUGHTER likes that??..."

Kerry and Edwards...NO BLOW IS TOO LOW!

The problem with an echo chamber is that you never learn to defend or examine your own ideas, such as they are, becuz you're spending so much time celebrating them.  Hey, all the mutual backslapping must be fun.  But oddly enuf, in this way you ape the Prez you so admire.  Surrounded by the gauzy aura of his own self-approval, the man simply doesn't take criticism all that well.   He  is unable to recognize his own mistakes.  And worse, he can't correct what he can't recognize.  I'm not surprised you'd suggest the commenter do so elsewhere.  The one thing adolescent triumphalism cannot stand is contradiction.

Now back to the adults.

No one used it against Gephardt.

So you do know the difference between "analogy" and "equate", yet somehow that distinction escaped you earlier.  Your disingenuousness is showing.

You would debate that having an abortion is shameful? You honestly think that it's something to be celebrated?  That's disgusting and reprehensible in the extreme.  

By changing the analogy, of course you would change the validity of the argument.  That's the nature of analogies.  If I originally stated that sun:daytime::moon:nighttime and then suddenly changed "daytime" to "orange", my analogy obviously falls apart.

Good grief.

"...Normally, we stock Troll Food on Aisle 13, but we just had a special and we're all out.  Can I offer you a raincheck?"

My kid got a "C" in Algebra.  He's not great at math, so a "C", for him was a big achievement.  I AM proud of the effort he put in.  

I do NOT want someone saying, "Of course there's nothing wrong with the fact that his son could only manage a 'C', his son is still one of God's children!".  It is strictly NONE of their business.  

Kerry went WAY out of his way to attack Cheney through his daughter.  And anyone who thinks he was just "reaching out to the Cheneys", or being expansive is dillusional!  

Kerry was trying to grab a couple extra votes...and Dick Cheney's daughter was a convenient target.  

Gephardt offered no real threat to the Dean, Kerry or Edwards campaigns and so, for the most part, his daughter was left untouched, although I do seem to recall there being some mention of it post one of the Dem primary debates.

I didn't claim that any group voted based on this issue.  I did, however, claim that there was still a stigma attached to homosexuality in some places/segments of the US's population at this point.  I also pointed out that some of the largest blocs of voters who consider homosexuality to be wrong tend to be Democratic voters.  Both points seem to have either escaped your notice or you're willfully misconstruing what I'm saying.  Either way, you're trying awfully hard to be obsequious and not trying very hard to understand or add to the discussion.

of being upset that politicians are using your child like a tennis ball to score cheap points. Regardless of the issue, any parent would be bothered by their child being used like that.

You are arguing that the shameless tactic is ok as long as there is a point to it? Otherwise this argument is a complete red herring, as I could argue there is a point to any reprehensible behavior. Of course Kerry/Edwards had a point they were trying to make. It doesn't make the behavior any more justified.

They stand for Christian leadership and putting down the disgusting rights of queers. It's going to be a great day when they shoot that down," Dammann said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13143-2004Oct6_2.html

We're talking about a candidate for President of the US of bleedin' A using gay-baiting to try to damage his opponent, and you bring in an off-the-cuff comment made by a supporter of a man who has seriously gone off his rocker, politics-wise?

The woman you quote is obviously dealing with some internal anger issues and possibly some dementia, given the fact that she's seriously considering voting for Keyes.

Many years ago, in a rare fit of honest self-examination, the Los Angeles Times ran a long article on how they handled the abortion issue. And they came to the conclusion that they HAD been biased in their 'news' articles covering the subject. Their reporters would quote the most reasonable, intelligent pro-choice side advocates and when looking for opposing, pro-life quotes, would run with the whackiest, most outregeous nutburgers they could find while ignoring thoughtful, reasonable pro-life quotes or advocates....all for supporting the pro-choice editorial position of the paper.

Certainly, it wouldn't be hard to go a Dem rally and find some hardcase socialist, gender-feminist or environmentalist to offer up a juicy nutburger quote. Why should we be surprised when WaPo finds such a statement at a Keyes rally?

But I will stand behind the statement that, in my home state of Oregon, the Republican party has only recently stopped providing support for anti-gay measures that get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.  These measures have attempted to ensure that gays and lesbians can be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation, to force state agencies to describe homosexuality as " abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse" and to ensure that homosexuality cannot be 'encouraged' in public schools.

And I'll source that claim too.

Here is a post-election description (from USA Today) of the most recent anti-gay measure in Oregon which also mentions the previous, more egrigious failed measures from 1992 and 1994.  However, since the web was still in its infancy in the early 90s, there aren't many pages that describe those earlier measures and their supporters, so this will have to do.  As for the most pertinent proof from the article for the Republican party providing the bulk of the electoral support for these measures:

Rural counties like Baker, Crook and Klamath overwhelmingly supported the measure, while Multhomah County -- which contains Portland -- rejected Measure 9 by an almost 2-to-1 margin.

Rural Oregon counties aren't exactly Democratic strongholds, and neither is Portland a haven for Republicans.  These measures succeed or fail on the basis of support from rural Republican voters.

We also have the Chairman of the Oregon Republican Party saying of gay rights measures in 2000 that ""We've lost this battle. I think this whole issue has run its course."  Implying that  a group the Chair of the Republican Party includes himself in was at the forefront of this battle.

And finally, to prove this isn't a theme which has been lost in the dustbin of history, we also have the current Oregon Repulican Party Platform, which states that gays and lesbians have made a concious, morally suspect choice (which Bush wasn't willing to say last night) and that there shouldn't be laws which protect people from discrimation on the basis of sexual orientation.

1.17.   We recognize the practice of homosexuality to be a matter of personal choice, and morally wrong. We oppose efforts to teach, promote or present homosexuality in public schools. We also oppose laws which grant minority status or the creation of special protection based upon one's sexual choices.

 So, while I wouldn't presume to suggest that you yourself are prejuidiced in any way against homosexuals, I think it is disingenous to suggest that Republicans don't provide the bulk of support for initiatives which seek to limit the protection afforded to gays and lesbians against discrimination or that portray their sexual orientation as a moral choice, one in which they have chosen poorly.  

"Notice that Augustine's analogy only works if the characteristic being mentioned (abortion) is somehow shameful.

Change the analogy to something no one would be ashamed of (Mary Cheney's height say or the color of her hair or the city she lives in) and it collapses. And that, exactly, is my point."

You DO get it, GT.  Your statement shows that you clearly understand that Kerry ONLY brought the point up because he thought SOMEONE out there would find Cheney's daughter's preference objectionable...AND KERRY WANTED THAT VOTE DAMMIT!  

Well, GT, some of us Americans find some things objectionable...and some find other things objectionable.  But one thing virtually ALL Americans find objectionable is someone attacking someone else's FAMILY.  

Our kids make choices on a million issues, some we like, some we don't.  But they are OUR KIDS!  Kerry was WAY out of line and completely wrong to do this.  If he had a shred of decency he would apologize.  I won't hold my breath.

I think he just wanted to give that vote a reason to stay home on Nov. 2nd.

How is mentioning she's an (out) lesbian a nasty political smear? And how come when Kerry mentioned Bush's daughters in the other debate it was a warm fuzzy moment?

Too bad this takes away from Bush's lie about not worrying about OBL.

For a man whose talking points come wholesale from, well, Talking Points Memo, the critique here is thin indeed.

This is a site for intra-Republican debate, not Republican v. Thick-headed Dem Trolls debate.  If you think there's none of the former, guess you weren't reading right after debate two.  If you think there's not enough of the latter, you can hike down the same path trodden by so many before you.

I guarantee Dems would be up in arms about the President's crass politicization of this personal family matter.

By all means, quote die-hard Keyes supporters as indicative of the party at large.  Please.

1. He was debating George Bush, not Dick Cheney.  Bush is the top of the ticket, not Cheney.  When Edwards brought up Mary Cheney, it was at least slightly topical, in that she's related to Dick by blood, whereas Kerry bringing it up to use against George Bush isn't even remotely topical.  
   
2. Cheney already mentioned in the Veep debate that, while he and the Prez might not necessarily see eye-to-eye on the issue, he supports the administration's policy 100%.
   
3. The mention of the Bush twins wasn't intended to score cheap, meanspirited political points, it was a "humanizing" moment.
   
4. For the most part, it's considered good form to lay off the family of your opponents, especially at the presidential level.  There has to be some level of decorum.

Any initiative which doesn't have the blessing of the most radical of the gay rights groups is homophobic & bigoted .... OK, Got it.

What the initiative you cite says is "We oppose treating sexual orientation as a 'group right' which we can be required to affirm by force of law."

And the reason it's being proposed is because the gay lobby is demanding exactly that sort of special treatment.

Listen, the reason JK brings up Mary Cheney is pretty obvious. When you are having a discussion about something in the abstract, you often try tie it to your everyday life in some concrete fashion. If I were discussing gay marriage with a friend, I might bring up some gay people I know that are married. I find that people are often able to be much crueler to gay people in the abstract than if they have to say the same thing about specific. Mary Cheney, being a prominent lesbian closely connected to the presidential campaign, is just an example of someone who is connected to the people having the discussion.

Anyway, bringing up homosexuality with relation to someone Bush knows forces Bush to make a decision. He can say that he think it's a good thing Mary Cheney is a lesbian, in which case he pisses off the people who disagree. Or he can say he disapproves of Mary Cheney being a lesbian, in which case the people who disagree with that are going to be pissed.

The funny part of this is that it is exactly like asking John Kerry if he will stop government funding of abortions. It makes Kerry say definitely which side he's on, and pisses off the people who disagree. Which he did, instead of ducking the question like Bush did so many times last night.

I won't sit here and say that there wasn't an ulterior motive involved in Kerry or Edwards bringing up Cheney's daughter. It's obvious they want to strip away some of the Bush/Cheney base that is not aware of this fact and may pose to be of limited shock value to them. On the other hand, it is related to the scope of the conversation, since the topic of homosexuality touches upon morality, ethics, religion, and personal feeling. Your personal beliefs come into play with this as much as it does with abortion (as well as Biblical support,  for some).

Nevertheless, when ulterior motives are at play, you could always expect the Bush/Cheney camp to not be that far behind. I can recall from the 2000 Primary in North Carolina a story about push polling comes to mind. Pretty low, I will say, on Bush's part.

But as good ol' Dubya responded to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) regarding the push polling, "It's just politics, John."

For once, Mr. President, you're absolutely right. It's just politics.

because Bush pretty clearly explained why he proposed the marriage amendment. I don't call that ducking the question, do you?

As for the other comment, you are saying that Mary was the only lesbian Kerry knows?? Does he even know her at all? Your argument falls flat on its face because he could have mentioned any of the many constituents he has met over the years. Mentioning the opposing running mate's daughter is not for the purpose of humanizing the response.

Nor was it for making Bush answer. After all, it's not his daughter, and Bush answered the question without having to invoke names or responding to other names. And this argument falls on its face as well since Kerry had the second answer, not the first. So Bush wasn't going to respond either way, no matter who or what Kerry talked about.

Lastly, if you want to talk about who was ducking questions, I have two words for you: "Flu vaccine."

So basically get a clue before you defend these actions with such specious arguments.

"I hate identity politics! Those who play it rob individuals of their uniquenss.

But then, that's what the Left is all about ... elevating the group over the individual."

Were this an attack on a definite low blow (that definitely connected, by the squirming it induced) by two Democratic politicians with names, okay.  But thanks for reminding us that "The Left" is responsible for these grievous wrongs.  Sounds like old-school group politics to me.

certainly can be taken as one opposing homosexual behavior, with the following sentences, understand the reasoning if a behavior is "chosen", then those "chosing" that behavior shouldn't be allowed to claim special status on par with race or gender.

Is that really "anti-gay?"

That's not meant to be provocative. I know there are people who do have "problems" with open homosexuality. And there are those that merely have a problem with groupism and "group" rights. Certainly "group rights" have come at the expense engendering some thorny and often contradictory issues in the law.

If you're a California employer and one of your male employees decided to show up to work each day in a dress, not only could you not fire him, you could not even discipline him without facing a fine. Is such an employer a "hater" of the transgendered? Or is that an employer that just has a dresscode policy that everyone has to adhere to?

Just because someone wants the legal definition of marriage to remain as one man/one woman unless changed by the people through the legislature and not through the courts that doesn't define that person as a "homophobe."

Your argument boils down to using a previous example of bad behavior to justify current bad behavior.  Right?  So John Kerry and John Edwards (and spouse) are just avenging John McCain?  How noble!   How ridiculous!

Regardless of the level of complicity that Bush may or may not have had in the 2000 incident (a) Bush did apologize to McCain (and they patched things up) AND....(b)  the 2000 incident was CANDIDATE-to-CANDIDATE.

This is using the FAMILIES of the candidates for political advantage.  IF one of Kerry's daughters had had an abortion, and it was public knowledge, and IF Bush said something like: "you may be a good Catholic, but what about your daughter...she had an abortion".   THEN I would drop all support for him...period!  

But Bush didn't do such a crass and classless thing...John Kerry did.  

When I say "the Left" I'm talking about the ideology.

What is the ideology of sexual orientation? Is there an ideology of people who use wheelchairs? Who have great or lesser amounts of melanin?

Because my gender is female, does that dictate my political beliefs?

The personal is the political?

Crock of ....

Believe me,  I find it to be lower than I would like to see either candidate behave. I do not condone Kerry or Edwards saying those things, but it's not entriely out of the scope of conversation.

The incident in 2000 involved McCain's child that he and his wife adopted. The incident now involves Cheney's child who is homosexual. The relation is very clear. The FAMILIES were used in both for political gain. PERIOD.

All I was saying was that using the opponent's family for political gain was something Bush had done previously. Kerry/Edwards are keeping company with some of the industry's best.

And who knows. Maybe one day both camps will patch things up and Bush/Cheney can help Kerry/Edwards when they run for re-election in 2008. Heck, I'll bet they even let Cheney's daughter Mary campaign for them too.

Let's keep it simple. I'm a red state kinda guy. It's simply rude to use another man's daughter for anything. It will get you beat up quicker than almost anything, and it especially pisses off women. You'd get hit faster if you used someone's mother--at least in my neighborhood.

Now for the stupid part--it pisses off women. W already has a big lead among men, and so why is Kerry alienating women?

The gay tangent might be interesting to political junkies, but what most people are responding to is the fact that Kerry brought another man's daughter into a political debate.

It will cost him votes.

Wasn't it just a few months ago that the Bush was attempting to use anti-gay sentiment as a "wedge issue"?  This was pretty much universally acknowledged at the time.

So was that political tactic really more classy then simply mentioning the (already well known) fact that the vice president's daughter (who has a job in his campaign) is gay?  

Or, to take another example, this very site has endorsed Tom Coburn , who said that there's a "lesbian problem" in Oklahoma so severe that they don't let more than one girl in the school bathroom at a time anymore.   Planning on retracting the Coburn endorsement for that oh-so-classy comment, Josh?

Or is it okay (and even classy) to spread anti-gay hysteria, as long as you don't mention any gay people by name?  

Remarkable that some feel compelled to stick up for the dignity of one particular lesbian who happens to be affiliated with the candidate they support, while remaining mum (or worse) about the rights and dignity of the homosexuals who aren't fortunate enough to be related to Dick Cheney.  

making people angry. Many people, especially women I know, think it's abhorrent to drag a man's children into a political scuffle. Sure Mary Cheney is Director of Vice Presidential Operations for her Dad's campaign. Big deal. I guess if she'd been on Hardball a million times that would be different. But have you read or heard a single word this woman has uttered during this campaign. I haven't.

Neither side has covered itself in glory about gay issues in this campaign, but that won't insulate Kerry from this gaffe.

He should have used Barney Frank for his little story.

then yes, there has been legislation involving state constitutions declaring homosexuality a sin (this nearly happened in Oregon), legislation barring laws such as anti-discrimination in the workplace. There has been legislation that will bar teachers from the workplace if they are gay or suspected of being gay, legislation against gay adoption or against letting people adopt if they have gay relatives who live in the home or who visit (I think this is the law in Arkansas).

You may want to run the name Phil Buress through Google News; you will see what I'm talking about with some party members and their obsession with homosexuality. An amendment is likely to pass in Ohio this year which is so sweeping that not only will homosexuals lose the right to have legal contracts such as wills, but unmarried heterosexual couples would as well. AARP criticized the bill and Buress said they were "senile". Ohio's 2 Republican senators criticized the bill and he said they were corrupted by "drinking that Washington water". Activists in favor of the amendment say that they must then work to outlaw homosexuality altogether, that SLAVERY was a more acceptable practice than homosexuality. That is a bit extreme, no? Ohio already has laws banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. Can you think of any valid reason to pass this overreaching amendment?

I'm not condemning all my fellow Republicans who have problems with homosexuals, but if you are not sure that around 75% of the party truly does have serious anger or fear of homosexuals, then I would bring up the GOP platform of Texas, or the convention platform this year, or remarks by Sen. Santorum about homosexuality and 9/11, or even some of the threads here.

>The GOP thinks that. My point exactly. If it was Kerry that had the lesbian daughter and Bush mentioned it no one in the Kerry camp would care.

That is either a genuinely obtuse or deliberately obtuse statement. Either way, it indicates a total lack of understanding about "the Kerry camp".

Clearly the Kerry camp hollers bloody murder whenever anyone does to them what they do to others. (That's called "hypocrasy" btw.)

If Bush had leveled a  blow like that at anyone in the "Kerry camp", they'd be hollering bloody murder today. They'd be yelling that Bush was trying to alienate anti-gay voters just as Kerry was trying to do last night.

Clearly the "Kerry camp" is not a good camp.

Doesn't Mary run her father's campaign? I thought she was executive director?

I suppose that's why I let the ingracious remark pass -- Mary was an important part of her father's campaign in 2000 and continues to collect a salary this year. I've never thought of her as being in a closet, or a cabinet. The major reason that she stays as hidden as she is is because the party does not want to hear about her (remember the reaction to Jim Kolbe speaking at 2000's convention).

I live in a mid-sized town, and have only lived in a few larger cities, but the homosexual men I've seen haven't worn dresses.

How do you feel about sodomy laws? The reason I ask is because this is a major platform in Texas' GOP, and in other states. This wouldn't be flaunting behavior in people's face, it is in the privacy of a home, as what happened to those two men in Texas (Lawrence and the other man).

I think if this only involved marriage then you might see less controversy, but when the legislation bars wills and legal contracts, or when you have Republicans (like ex-Rep. Linder in Minnesota) who make remarks like gays were not killed in the Holocaust and gays are going to cause AIDS to spread across America the way it has in Africa, then you are going into an area beyond special rights.

The problem with homosexuality and reaction to homosexuality is homosexuals who are overly defensive and heterosexuals who feel that all homosexuals are trying to 'force' them to behave a certain way. Many homosexuals simply want some basic protections and to go about their lives in peace, from my experience. When we demand the law state that they did not choose their homosexuality, then we are smothering them just as Republicans claim they smother us, because we have no proof that they choose to be gay.

Personally, I used to believe it was a choice. After working with homosexuals, and having relatives who are homosexual, I no longer do. I know people who were not abused, who did not have problems with their parents, who tried to be heterosexual, and they are homosexual. That they admit that and want a few small protections is not a threat to our marriages or our lives, I don't believe.

  No one forced the Republican party to make a play for the anti-sodomy vote.  They've chosen to make hostility to homosexuality part of their national profile-- the Bush campaign included.  If they hadn't done so, pointing out that there's a homosexual running the Vice President's campaign, who happens to be his daughter, would be almost meaningless.  

  Now, how about that Coburn endorsement?  There's lesbians in Oklahoma's high school bathrooms! That's how far we've fallen in this country! And now send your money to Tom Coburn, Redstaters!  But keep Mary Cheney out of it!  

Can you explain to me why it's somehow okay to purposefully promote and exploit hysteria against whole classes of people, as long as you refrain from mentioning anybody by name?  Can you explain why it's just dandy for Tom Coburn to viciously demonize the whole group that Mary Cheney belongs to, but not okay for someone to simply point out that Mary Cheney belongs to that group?  How can this possibly be?

It seems to me that the answer likely has more to do with partisanship than with absolute standards of classiness.

Bush's campaign screwed up THEN, he apologized and he and McCain moved on.  Four years ago, and frankly this push-poll was used in a primary in one state, and stunk.  Granted.

What you are saying is that since this occured it doesn't matter AT ALL to you what your boy does this time...it is pre-justified.  

At what point in the future would you consider holding Kerry accountable for ANYTHING??  

It WAS out of the scope of the conversation last night, and it is beyond ANYTHING Bush and/or Cheney has done to the children of Kerry or Edwards.  

Politics can be, and usually IS, pretty darn nasty.  

Boxing can be too. You can hit the guy in front of you all you want.  You can even try to sneak a head-butt in (if you're a cheater) and you may or may not get caught.  People may not like you much...but they know it is a tough game.

You CANNOT step out of the ring and punch your opponent's kid!  GET IT?  

Bush could not "step outside the ring" and pick on the Edward's dead son as an example of reckless driving!  He would have been RIGHTLY crucified for it!  

Kerry and Edwards have decided this is a cheap way to pick up votes...and if they get away with it will just keep moving on down the list to the next underhanded thing!  

Kerry deserves every bad thing that happens as a result of this!

Good to hear you acknowledge that the push polling was not a good move. Admitting it is the first step, they say.

Your second sentence holds no water with me. I never said it doesn't matter what "my boy" does at this time. Never were those words typed on my monitor, nor inferred by my text. I hold Kerry accountable for that comment. Remember? When I said I believed there was an ulterior motive? I don't agree with it. Personally, I wouldn't have said it. Is that "near future" enough for you?

And don't forget, Bush didn't apologize immediately after the push poll incident. Maybe the Kerry Camp and the Bush Camp will bury the hatchet like Bush and McCain did. That relationship didn't turn out so bad. There might be hope for Kerry and Bush in the "near future". After all, Bush is a Christian. I know he's just waiting for an opportunity to turn the other cheek.

To sum up: Not justifying. Holding accountable for a "quasi-unscrupulous" comment that I myself would not have made. Not proud of it.

and don't really care. If Kerry had used Barney Frank he could have made the identical point, probably more forcefully, and nobody would have cared.

Look, you've got an axe to grind about gay politics, fine, but you're missing the boat on this one, and you hurt your cause.

Because lot's or people think Kerry was out of bounds to use Cheney's daughter for political gain doesn't make them closet homophobes.

Start a new thread to bitch about those nasty Republican gay bashers.

This is what Kerry said:

"We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Was this the verbal equivalent of a punch in the boxing ring? You are really grabbing at straws here.

Personally, I wouldn't have brought it up. That's just me. But man, I really can't find anything harmful about what he said.

I think all the attention surrounding this issue is a weak attempt to grab a hold of anything that will, in the 11th hour, do even the slightest bit of damage to Kerry's character. Unfortunately for the perpetuators of the controversy, a large portion of the Amercian people are already past it.

And drawing parallels between Edwards' dead son, whom Bush has never mentioned previously, and Dick Cheney's homosexual daughter, who has been involved loosely in this campaign (she is campaigning for her father, don't forget) is comparing apples to oranges. Talking about Edwards' daughter who is alive would've been a good parallel, especially if he could've bound the comment loosely in a healthcare matter or education issue.

Are the gay people in this country whose personal lives are profoundly affected by national policies and attitudes on homosexuality inside or outside "the ring"?  

Are the actual young lesbians in Oklahoma whose lives are made worse by the attitudes promoted and exploited by Tom Coburn (and by George Bush) inside, or outside the ring?  

Such people don't have the luxury of seeing homosexuality as a "wedge issue."  For them, it's life. And when politicians promote and exploit anti-gay sentiment, such people are personally affected.  Do you deny this?

Yet Redstate doesn't weep for them, only for Mary Cheney.  Why is this?  I think I know.

For me, the bottom line is that Dick Cheney is counting on the votes of people whose political views are inextricably linked with the notion that his daughter is a pervert-- a sinner-- a freak.  

Not only is he counting on those votes, his ticket has made an overt attempt to win those votes.  If you're looking for somewhere to expend your outrage, maybe you should start there.

I certainly agree with that. I don't know (and neither does science at this point) if homosexuality has a genetic component or not. At best, the working theory is that there may be a genetic predisposition that is influenced by maternal hormones in utero.

However, I personally believe the question choice is irrelevant. I believe gay people are people first and their sexual orientation is no more relevant to their values and character than their height, skin color or accent.

I don't think consenting adults in the privacy of their home should have their consensual sex practices criminalized (with the usual legal disclaimers here dealing with acts of violence).

While I personally can't understand invalidating contracts drawn up in a legal manner between adults dealing with things like inheritance (do you have a case? I'd like to see the judges reasoning) but such contract law is the province of the legislature and that's where it needs to be corrected.

IMO, the only ONLY reason the FMA hasn't died yet are MA Judges and Frisco Mayor Newsom. Most people are quite willing to leave it up to each state, but they don't like to be pissed on by others who say "you stupid bobos ... we'll show you what we think of YOUR vote."

It's odd that a post condemning a candidate for mentioning his opponent's family members would include a sneering reference to the death of that candidate's mother.  

...The VP HAS used his daugther's homosexuality in this campaign, according to USA Today, anyway.

...[Cheney] said at a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said as his daughter Mary stood in the audience.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/08/25/549819?extID=10032&ol
iID=213

So... if Cheney thinks it's OK to bring it up, (which he should, it's nothing to be ashamed of, right?) what exactly was wrong with Kerry doing it?

you aren't one of the ones complaining about the SwiftVets...after all, this is another example of "keeping good company", poetic justice, et al.

I didn't know that Cheney brought up his daughter's homosexuality in his campaign before.

Very interesting.

switcher-of-topics.

The fact that Cheney didn't hesitate to tout his daughter's homosexuality in a campaign appearance raises the question of whether he really is outraged by this, or whether instead he may be attempting to spin Kerry's comment for political purposes.  

Care to explain where the hysteria and hostility remarks are coming from?

The fact is that in every state that a vote is held concerning gay marriage, overwhelming majorities support marriage being defined exclusively as between man and woman. Now either you believe in democracy or you believe in the select few living in ivory towers dictating how things should be. But voting down gay marriage is not hysteria, it is democracy in action. So be it.

don't lecture me on switching topics right after you did the exact same by bringing up McCain. One irrelevant side bar deserved another.

Sorry, just had to continue that.

My topic was bringing family into the debate by commenting on them to (hopefully) sway voters.

There is a strong parallel between the push polling from 2000 and Kerry's/Edward's comments recently. They both brought family into the matter to sway votes. Simple as that (although the push polling incident was far more dirty, underhanded, and sinister than Kerry's comment last night, by far).

The SwiftVet thing is another debate for another thread with (maybe) another person. So feel free to start a new thread, sport. You just might find a comment from me.

I like the way you think, JakeV.

denied that you were saying that one justified the other, so in that light they are independent, unconnected events that have no bearing on each other. You can't have it both ways. Either you are using one to justify the other, in which case the Kerry/SwiftVet story is another one-justifies-the-other parallel, or you are listing the McCain story for some strange reason that you haven't provided yet, in which case one irrelevant side bar deserves another. Logic 101, sport.

As for commenting on SwiftVets, there are plenty of exist threads for you to comment within. I don't need to start a new one to give you ample opportunity to respond. So make everyone's day around here and post away.

I also see that the first person to mention Cheney's daughter during the debates was not John Edwards, but Gwen Ifill.  

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.

So apparently the media is just as classless as Kerry and Edwards are.  I suspected as much!

where I justified it, champ? I would love to see it. There was no justification whatsoever. I never said "Hey, Bush used McCain's family, so it was okay for Kerry to use Cheney's family", or anything of the sort (2nd grade English, junior). I simply said that I didn't agree with Kerry bringing that much of a personal note to the debate as he did. But by doing so, he's not alone. He's in the best company (c'mon, I am throwing the current administration a HUGE compliment here). I said these guys were the industry's best.

I am just making an observation. Was anything I said false? I stated the facts. I never justified anything. If I did, I would've what Kerry said was okay considering what Bush did (you might want to refresh your definition of "justify"). But I did not justify. Therefore, no justification can take place. Rand seemed to have understood this.

Even though Mary Cheney may be serving on the Vice President's campaign, it is not OK to use another candidate's family member as a means to attack your opponent.  That's low and reprehensible.  For those of you who think this is justified, would President Bush then have been justified to claim that it is unfortunate John Kerry's daughters are "bastards" because the church he belongs to does not recognize children who are from a marriage that has been annulled (which Kerry sought).  Would that have been beyond the pale?  Yes, it would have, just as what Kerry did was, too.  

[it being the FMA] is being used against because of backlash against the court cases, but also as a political tool. I certainly think that some of the comments from Mel Martinez, especially agianst Bill McCollum, went much too far into politics and into bashing, and was clearly not about the court cases in Massachusetts and California. In Oregon, the Republican Party even admitted that their motives for anti-gay were political, to help President Bush.

One of the reasons that I worry this is a trap is because of some of the responses that I've been hearing from Republicans in the media. Not simply, "how dare he violate Mary Cheney's private life", but, that what he did was similar to saying she was an alcoholic (that's what the head of the California GOP said), saying what if Carter had praised Betty Ford for her addiction. I'm not sure how many swing voters want to hear this talk. Statements on this should be kept to condemnations of anyone's children or family being dredged up to score a point, not comparing homosexuality to drug addiction or alcohilism. At least that's how I feel.

Overall I feel this incident shows how classless John Kerry is, and while more focus should go on his record, hopefully this will remind voters that he is too cold and impersonal to be our President.

Well first I said "You also denied that you were saying that one justified the other..." Can you read a simple sentence? Then I gave you an either/or. What about either/or don't you understand? So one irrelevant "observation" deserved another "observation", i.e. to the SwiftVets being in good company with Kerry. You have a problem with observations when you seem to like them yourself? Again, don't lecture me on switching topics when you are so apt to do so yourself.

You wouldn't be the twice banned slapshot57 would you? He seemed to have trouble with elementary school level reading too. The sophomoric prose seems to match too.

How many ways can Kerry supporters get on here and defend him?  

I've seen dredging up past Republican behavior, I've seen current efforts to define marriage as between a man and a woman, I've seen conspiracy theory (Cheney WANTED Kerry to drag his daughter into this)....and so on.

I've posted enough on this today.

Here's the deal folks: Cheney's family is his own.  Kerry knows this.  Kerry made a calculated move to use her sexual preference for political gain.  Kerry was dead wrong.

Period.

I want politics to get BETTER, more real and less sleazy.  Kerry just set it back...and his supporters are ecstatic about it!  Scary.

Do you think it was sleazy of Gwen Ifill to mention Mary Cheney as debate moderator?

Using someone's family as a weapon is simply bad form. Is it going to happen under the radar in whispering campaigns? Yes. It is unseemly for candidates to do it? Yes.

and your quote was strangely lacking.

I don't understand.  Are you saying that Gwen Ifill didn't refer to Mary Cheney in her question at the debate?

What exactly do you think Ifill meant when she said that Cheney had recently used his own family to talk about the issue of gay rights?  What could she possibly have meant except Cheney's mention of his daughter's lesbianism at an August campaign appearance?

Come on, Seth.  Ifill clearly was referring to Cheney's comments on his daughter's sexual orientation.  She referred to Mary Cheney somewhat more obliquely than Kerry and Edwards did-- did that obliqueness make her reference more appropriate?  

As for the other comment, you are saying that Mary was the only lesbian Kerry knows?

I think it was pretty obvious what I was saying when I said Ms. Cheney "is a prominent lesbian connected to the presidential campaign." But anyway, the whole Mary Cheney thing is pretty stupid. Sully pretty much nails the issue
here, and I don't have much to add to that.

Not sure which debate you watched

The one where Bush was asked about minimum wage and spent eighty-five seconds talking about education.

Lastly, if you want to talk about who was ducking questions, I have two words for you: "Flu vaccine."

There's not much more to say on the flu vaccine issue. Mr. Schieffer asked the President there was a severe shortage of flu vaccine. Bush told him. (Because some of our supply turned out to be contaminated.) Bush answered the question, and he didn't make any contentious points, so there's nothing to rebut. Therefore Kerry used the opportunity to talk about health care, an issue which the flu vaccine is a subset of.

So I give you maybe half a point at best on the "Who ducked questions?" score. Meanwhile when asked about affirmative action Bush said he wanted to make Pell grants more affordable and unbundle certain government contracts. Which I guess answers the question as to what he thinks of affirmative action, but since he never actually comes out and says it, it doesn't count as answering the question.

For those of you keeping score at home, that's two evasions for Bush, and 0.5 evasions for Kerry. We could go through the transcript exhaustively I guess, but I gotta warn you, Bush comes out pretty badly in the final score.

She very deferently allowed Cheney to address it in his own terms if he wanted to or not. She didn't call out anyone or any specific situation. In addition, the question was asked of Cheney, not thrown out in some other context posed to another person. If Ifill asked Keyes about Cheney's daughter by name in a Keyes/Obama debate, it would certainly be inappropriate. Asking Cheney in a way that conveys respect and tact to him is very obviously different.

Gwen Ifill's "obliqueness" WAS more appropriate.  Whether she should have raised the question at all is another issue, but the reason you didn't see the same hue & cry over that comes down to two factors:

(1)  she WAS very deferential (and thus allowed Cheney to respond as he was comfortable)

(2)  she was talking to the FATHER!  If he wanted to shut it off, he could...it's his kid!  

Now Kerry:

(1)  Kerry's approach was HAM-HANDED, and intended to buy votes at Mary Cheney's expense.

(2)  He was NOT talking to the FATHER

If someone wants to use my kid as an example of something, especially something that is controversial in ANY way, I better be standing there when they do it!   That way I can shut off the topic if I want to, or provide context or explanation.  ONLY A COWARD would do what Kerry did.  Period.  

And then Elizabeth Edwards decides to label Lynn Cheney "ashamed" of her daughter?  Because Lynn didn't like someone throwing her daughter's private life out on national TV and said so???  

And you, JAKEV, think these people are classy?

I'm having a flashback to 1992.  The slogan then was 'Human rights aren't special rights.'

Let's be on the level with one another.  I'm not gay.  I know gay people, but I'm not active in any groups which advocate exclusively for gay or lesbian issues.  However, I believe protection from being fired without just cause is a basic economic right.  I think you should be protected from being fired from your job simply because you are a Republican, for example.  Republicanism is more of a 'lifestyle choice' than sexual orientation, and likely has just as much of an effect (miniscule, to be precise) on your job performance in almost all circumstances.

The 1992 measure (which I am most familiar with, as I attended college from 1996 to 2000 and now don't reside in Oregon) was specifically aimed to prevent gay or lesbians from having a right to sue for unlawful termination.  I don't think that's right, and I don't have to be brainwashed by the 'gay lobby' to think that.

Anyway, I think this is all beside the point -- my original post was just to show that it is false to suggest that Republicanism and initiatives that restrict the rights of gay and lesbians are complete strangers.  I disagree with those views, but I'm not suggesting those who hold them need to change them.  I just think those who support the party that advances those goals do need to acknowledge that party does hold those views.

1. "you also denied that you were saying that one justified the other, so in that light they are independent, unconnected events that have no bearing on each other."

Again, for justification, I need to agree that one of the items was right or correct. I did not do this. I did not agree with how Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter. I, therefore, disagreed with it, like I disagreed with Bush using McCain's family for his political agenda. So here's the situation: Kerry uses Cheney's child for political gain...bad, Bush used McCain's child for political gain...bad. What both of these guys did, I find to be questionable behavior, Bush's being the worse of the two. Is this clear up to here?  

The SwiftVet story uses no family member for political gain, therefore I do not feel it is in the same vein as the thread I started.

Again, I do not justify one with the other, nor do I support/condone one or the other. Personally, I would've left either alone because I feel family to be a more personal matter.

Where is this lecture you keep mentioning? Did I sound like I was lecturing you?

And no, this isn't the notorious, twice-banned slapshot57. Sorry for my "prose". I didn't think it to be sophomoric at all.

that you bring up another situation for no apparent reason and basically say there is no link other than maybe coincidence (?) between the two events. No poetic justice connection, no justification connection. Just unmeaningful observation. Ok, so in that vein, I find an observational link between Bush getting what he gave previously to be very similar to Kerry getting what he gave previously to vets (Kerry's being the worse of the two as well). There is your observational comparison.

Under the provisions you have laid out, my observation is as connected to this as yours was.

Why can't you Kerry supporters get it into your heads that the issue isn't whether Cheney is ashamed of his daughter's sexuality - past public statements suggest that, even if he doesn't agree with her choice, he still supports and loves her as any father should.  The issue is that Kerry's statement had nothing, nothing to do with George Bush and thus, by bringing it up in the context that he chose to, Kerry was trying to use Mary Cheney's sexuality as a wedge issue.  He's the one exploiting her sexuality.  It's crass, it's demeaning, and it's reprehensible.

What offended me most about it was not so much that he mentioned her (although that was very inappropriate by itself), but that he felt entitled to speak for her.  He put words in her mouth.  Never mind whether she actually believes what he said she believes or not.  He has no right to appoint himself her spokesman, especially on something that's none of his business.

would've been an attack. Look at what Kerry said again and tell me that it was an insult. Although I wouldn't have brought it up personally, he spoke NO ILL of her. What can't you understand this? He didn't say "Homosexuality is wrong, just ask Mary Cheney", or "Mary Cheney is evil, she's a homosexual". Bastard is a derrogatory term. Kerry used no derrogatory terms. You act like it was an all-out assault on homosexuals everywhere. All he said was that he didn't believe homosexuality was a choice.

if you explained how the SwiftVets fit into this. And I know you're trying to bait me into this conversation, so I'll put a foot into the pool. Are you just throwing this all under the umbrella of deceit? My point was the ulterior motives desired through bringing up aspects of the opponents families. And that is the extent of it. Bush used McCain's family, Kerry used Cheney's family. Now, unless the Swiftvets used Kerry's family, I don't really see how bringing them up here fits. This swiftvets controversy falls under the category of deceit (are the accusations true? watch nightline from last night and tell me). But does it more specifically fall under the category of using opponents' families for political gain? Unless I am missing something, I would say no.

And I will ask you again...where was I lecturing you before when you accused me of it?

You drew a parallel. I drew a parallel to candidates getting in return what they have dished out previously to others.

As for truth, there are lots more aspects to the SwiftVet controversy than one or two battles. They have forced Kerry to admit he is lying (though Kerry's choice of words for lying is more subtle) about his Cambodia story. So by Kerry's own mouth, we know the SwiftVets are telling the truth on at least a couple of issues. [We also know Kerry broke a few laws after the war, again by his own testimony.]

One of the definitions of 'lecture' is formal reproof. That is what I was saying here, when you seemed fit to correct me on switching topics when you had done so yourself.

"You'll never know switcher-of-topics." to be lecturing, as you believe it to fall under the scope of the definition you stated? Well, okay. Sorry for lecturing you. I will try not to lecture you in the near future. I hope my lecture did not offend you in any way. Again, sorry for the lecture.

I don't feel I switched topics. My original post was about McCain and his child and Cheney and his child (how they were used for political gain). So then you insert the swiftvets in the conversation, trying to get me to state my opinion of it. I would like to stick to my original post's theme (and what I thought was the theme of the parent post) of using opponent's families for political gain. I feel that both of the examples I stated were well within the framework of the post of using families for political gain. That's what this thread is about, Kerry's lack of class (see original post by Trevino). I submitted a post that simply said "Hey, I don't agree with it, much like I didn't agree with it in 2000 when Bush did it, although Bush's was WAY worse". I don't justify either. I feel theat both cnadidate's at the time could have left out their opponents families. Then you come in and insert swiftvets, saying Kerry is getting what he gave. Look at the posts before you. Any mentioning of swiftvets? I believe yours isa the first. Okay, any mentioning of using families for political gain? I don't think there is a person in this thread that would say I switched topics. Now if I were to start bringing up things like Bush saying he never said he wasn't concerned about Osama, that would be a topic switcher.

yours fails. No one before you brought up McCain. By your expansion of the "theme" to include other events not connected but similar in nature, I expanded it to a similar situation in which Kerry got what he previously dished out.

Again, if you would state your purpose for bringing up McCain other than interesting historical trivia, you might build a more solid case concerning "not switching topics."

As for 'lecture,' I am sorry that you cannot see how what I said makes sense in context. Sorry if English is a bit much for you. I'll try to post in Swahili next time.

The point of my analogy is this: let's say Bush disagreed with the Catholic Church's belief that children born in a marriage that has been annulled are illegitimate.  Would he have been justified in personalizing the issue by using Kerry's two daughters as examples of the wrongful stigma that is attached to them due to a position of the Catholic Church?  Is that appropriate?  No, it's not, it totally lacks any sense of decorum or respect.  There have been many notable examples in which the family members of Presidents and Vice Presidents disagree with them on a controversial public issue.  But, I never recall an instance -- until now -- in which the opponent has manipulated that disagreement to pit them against each other in a very public manner.  If Kerry wanted to make his point in a respectful manner, he could have easily used another well-known gay American that the public could relate to.  But, he deliberately chose not to.  I just don't believe it's right to drag family members into a debate on public issues, unless they explicitly want to be.  

Mary Cheney's homosexuality is not private.  She is extremely open about it.  She has done Republican gay outreach, for goodness' sake.

So, how is saying that she is a lesbian bringing her "private life" into the equation?  Is it bringing someone's "private life" into play to say they are married?  Or is homosexuality inherently more "private" than heterosexuality?

By the way, I agree with the poster below that it was presumptuous for Kerry to put words in Mary Cheney's mouth.  

Just one more question-- was it inappropriate for Gore's political opponents to point out that he supported public schools, but his children went to  private schools?  This was mentioned quite often in 2000.

Was that classless?  Why or why not?

went to private school because GORE chose for them to go there. Where they went to school represented Gore's choice, not their own choice, or their own genetic makeup, or their own lifestyle choices. And certainly no one was stating what Gore's children thought about their school on their behalf.

So Gore choosing to send his kids one place and saying public school is great represents Gore's hypocrisy, not his kids'. If you are going to compare the two, it would be more like Dole asking Clinton in a debate why Gore's kids went to private school. It is irrelevant and gratuitous in that context.

The point is, is bringing Gore's kids and their lifestyle as a way to attack Gore classless and inappropriate, or not?

After all, the candidate's children are out of bounds, right?  Or wrong?

Pointing out whether Gore puts his kids in public or private school is about Gore's decision, not about his kids "lifestyle," though your choice of words gave me a good chuckle. Try as you might to be obtuse, anybody else can see the distinction, so you don't do yourself a service by playing dumb.

Seth--

Is the private school criticism using the candidate's children as a way to attack him politically?

Is it okay to mention a candidate's children to attack him politically if you are doing it to expose that candidate's hypocrisy?  Yes or no?

Ask 5 billion times and you'll get the same answer. The candidate's children were not. Gore's choice to put them in private school was mentioned. Gore's choice was under examination, not "their lifestyle" This is the same point you tried to make about Ifill "mentioning" Mary when she actually didn't.

Frankly, I don't understand this desparate attempt at drawing ridiculous comparisons in order to make <insert brilliant point here>. This is your second failed attempt, and the only people who might be fooled are far left ideologues, i.e. your choir. Certainly no reasonable person would think you have a point with this. But I bet you thought you were pretty clever for thinking it up...

Yes or no: "I am stupid and this is the best I could come up with."