Like Mrs. Cheyney says….THIS IS A BAD MAN

Posted by: dickmr at October 15, 2004 06:46 PM

John Kerry was making an essentially positive statement about gays and lesbians. Cheney’s daughter is out of the closet. Her father talked about her lesbianism openly on the campaign trail just a few weeks ago. He is obviously not embarassed by her and Kerry was not trying to embarass anybody in what he said. Could the point have been made as easily without her name, sure. At the very worst he was slightly tactless in personalizing his point.

Posted by: rdelephant at October 15, 2004 07:40 PM

“At the very worst he was slightly tactless in personalizing his point.”

Your opinion.

I consider the source. For both yours and his.

The italicized portion Posted by: rdelephant at October 15, 2004 07:40 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 15, 2004 08:10 PM

So, when Bush supporters in South Carolina in 200 said John McCain had a “black baby”, they were merely noting the fact, not trying to appeal to racial prejudice.

And had Bush said, when asked about marriage, something along the lines of “Divorce is a very tragic event for children, as Alexandra Kerry must know”…

that would have been just fine in rdelephant’s book as well?

I’m guessing not.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at October 15, 2004 08:21 PM

George Bush was appealing to racial prejudice with his “black baby” comments back in 2000. John Kerry was not appealing to prejudice (based on sexual orientation or otherwise) when he made the comment about Mary Cheney… EXACTLY the opposite, he was saying that being gay or lesbian is NOT a matter of choice but a matter of who they are, the view held by virtually all gays and lesbians.

Posted by: rdelephant at October 15, 2004 08:38 PM

Sorry Rdelephant: if this was a wonderful, celebratory comment, why did Kerry’s campaign manager describe Mary Cheney as “fair game”? What’s the “game”?

Nope. This was a sleazy, tacky attempt to score political points at the expense of someone’s family member.

And now there’s news that campaign commercials are coming out that attack Mary Cheney

Nice.

Posted by: Foobarista at October 15, 2004 10:38 PM

rdelelphant, you do other attorneys a disservice by playing fats and loose with facts here.

Goerge Bush never said McCain had a “black baby”. Some of his supporters took it upon themselves to say so; you have no proof that he approved of it or instructed them to do so.

Leaving that quite aside, I’d sure like to know how your mind-reading machine works, that you can somehow discover that John Kerry made that comment with no intent of gay-baiting; whereas Bush’s supporters were race-baiting.

You didn’t respond to my hypothetical about divorce either, but that’s your standard tactic, to ignore anything you can’t answer.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at October 15, 2004 11:27 PM

oh, this is laughable indeed! Take a look back through the archives of this site; anyone here who is expressing shock and horror about Kerry’s statement is being cynically dishonest at best. The blatantly slanderous things said here about Mrs. Kerry, the oily snake-like thinking behind some of the very personally based Kerry smears….this is opportunism at it’s worst. Gabriel, I would bet that since Kerry supports gay rights, he wasn’t baiting them. Since what he said couldn’t be miscontrued as any kind of a slur unless someone were willfully twisting it to be one, I have my doubts about that ABC poll. I have to wonder just who was being polled…”likely voters” my eye. Cheney himself thanked Edwards for saying essentially the same thing (the same Cheney who carped on Kerry for voting for tax increases 98 times, but who himself had voted for them 144 times!) and there wasn’t anyone here crying “smear!” then like this charade going on now. Again and again, many people in this forum blow smoke out of their collective asses instead of addressing things by legitimate debate or even clear thought. This is a non-issue, and a pretty poor one at that.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 16, 2004 12:57 AM

I see the liberals are once again rushing to their damage control stations - don’t waste your keystrokes. Clearly this was a coordinated, calculated attack by Kerry, Cahill and Edwardsx2. Now with the news about yet another “independent group” getting ads ready along the same line, the sleaze is clear. Luckily this time the sleaze is far too obvious to the American people. The excerpt below comes from the Washington Post poll, conducted prior to much of the now national attention on this ridiculous miscalculation on the part of the Kerry campaign/DNC.

“An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday’s presidential debate that Vice President Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian, according to the latest Washington Post tracking survey.

Nearly two in three likely voters — 64 percent — said Kerry’s comment was “inappropriate,” including more than four in 10 of his own supporters and half of all swing voters. A third — 33 percent — thought the remark was appropriate. “

This clearly shows that even a large number of Kerry supporters thought that this was completely uncalled for. Mary Cheney has always been a very private person, her choice to be that way. For a candidate for CiC to bring out the child of a candidate on the opposing ticket is unprecedented in American politics, thank God! Senator Kerry does not know Ms. Cheney personally, nor do Cahill, or Sen. and Mrs. Edwards. They should not be speaking or inferring someone’s beliefs that they do not know. Talk about Barney Frank or McGrevey etc etc, but don’t go to the opposition’s children.

Furthermore, it is clear that this is an effort to do exactly what the DNC wants to accuse the republicans of attempting - voter suppression. It is clear that the only motive of this attack would be to try to get the extreme right, who are not as fair and loving as the Bush Cheney team when it comes to recognizing homosexual rights, to stay home and not vote because they disagree with the ticket. There is a tremendous difference between recognizing rights and granting federal sanction of the same. No one has prevented anyone from getting married, much like no one has banned ANY stem cell research; in fact Bush is the very first president to fund ANY stem cell research! Insurance companies have long recognized domestic partnerships, so no additional legislation is necessary in that arena, maybe there are other directed needs, but they can likely be accomplished through simple legislation, not federal recognition of gay marriage. When activist judges are creating law instead of interpreting, then it is reasonable to discuss whether the original constitutional intent needs to be reinforced. A president or VP cannot do that, they can raise it for discussion and the states/voters and legislative bodies will determine if necessary.

This was a coordinated attack, likely one of the most underhanded in campaign history with respect to children. There are areas, recognized through all campaigns, which are off limits - children, regardless of age, are at the top of the list! This was a clear invasion of privacy and yet liberals will complain of something as noninvasive (and necessary) as the Patriot Act. What utter hypocrisy!

By the way, while I am on a roll here, why exactly will Kerry not sign Form 180 and release all his military records? Why was he first given an Honorable Discharge in 1978, after Carter had pardoned all the draft evaders/protestors - coincidence? Especially considering that there was a formal hearing necessary to change the discharge status. Why were Kerry’s medals reinstated in 1985? Normally something is reinstated only if it was previously stripped? Interesting questions that the records would surely answer if Kerry would release them. They would be nearly as nice to read as Kerry’s 1971 book “The New Soldier” which pictures a reenactment of Iwo Jima on the cover except with protestors and an upside down U.S. flag. By the way, if you read the book (which Kerry has prevented from being reprinted) and substitute the word Iraq for Vietnam, you’ll see that Kerry sure hasn’t changed in thought, only style in 33 years! CiC - should be disqualified for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war - well maybe that is why he wasn’t originally discharged honorably in 1972.

Posted by: I collect political items at October 16, 2004 01:58 AM

Forgive me for still persisting in thinking it was a really cheap shot, no matter how it was meant.

Let me give some examples.

I already suggested it would be out of line for Bush to use Alexandra Kerry as an example of what divorce does to families.

I think it would also be out of line if Kerry were to use Laura Bush’s vehicular homicide to illustrate a point about the safety of rural roads.

I definitely think it is out of line to tell people McCain has a “black baby” (actually Bangladeshi); definitely out of line for a South Carolina Democrat to say that a friend of his opponent does not display “South Carolina values” because “after his divorce he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu”. (His opponent’s friend? Rudy Giuliani.)

What if Bush had said the same thing about Dick Gephardt’s lesbian daughter? I think we can predict the Democrat reaction.

And you know, no one defending Kerry’s remark has yet come up with a convincing explanation of what the description of Mary Cheney as “fair game” is to mean.

And I also find it very inadequate to say that Kerry could not possibly have been gaybaiting, merely because he is Democrat. Plenty of Democrats have said racist and gay-baiting things, and still do. Not one of you knows how John Kerry treats gay people, or speaks of them when he thinks no one is listening. You don’t know it of George Bush either, but for one you assume the best and for the other the worst, merely because of the D and R suffixes.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at October 16, 2004 06:50 AM

Gabriel…I don’t know if you were responding to me or not, but nowhere in my comment did I mention either the Democratic or Republican Parties; I said that Kerry supported gay rights. There are republicans that support those rights as well…I did not discriminate between them. Mentioning Gephardts daughter wouldn’t be appropriate because she isn’t out openly campaigning with and for her father, as Ms. Cheney is. And, again, I think that what was said was appropriate, answered the question that was being asked, and in no way unkind to anyone. Why you think it was a “cheap shot” I still don’t understand, unless you’re saying that her simply being gay is somehow reprehensible. Now, for that fellow before you suggesting that this was “coordinated attack, likely one of the most underhanded in campaign history with respect to children”…yeah. That strikes me as typically shrill spin; no one believes that A) it was any kind of an “attack” and B) let’s not get started on recent truly vicious and personal attacks aimed at candidates children (McCain’s adopted daughter and the truly cheap shots aimed at her, her adopted parents, et al. quickly comes to mind).

Posted by: Jatsby at October 16, 2004 07:12 AM

The fact that anyone has to justify or defend Kerry’s statement should give the rest of us pause to realize that it was inopportune at the very least.

Since it was made in a formal debate situation, it should be argued at an academic level. From that point of view alone it detracted from what he was trying to say, rather than expanded on his thrust. Three purple hearts hardly makes him an authority on the issues of the gay community, let alone their personal feelings. Nor does his congressional record point to any deep understanding of the issues involved.

However, and this is probably the most pertinent, this is a political campaign, and Kerry certainly has a record of saying things that he believes will garner more votes for him in the election. Whether this was pre-calculated, or a spur of the moment thing, it was a chance he took, rather than a stand on principle.

The easiest test is to ask whether his point could not have been made without mentioning Cheney’s daughter. The simple answer is “yes”, resoundingly. So the assumption has to be made that this was, as it is now widely perceived, nothing short of a cheap shot.

To argue that someone said something along the same lines about someone else on a previous occasion merely serves to underline the tawdry status of Kerry’s words. It further helps to define and underline his lack of a strong ethical base, and his penchant for playing to the gallery.

This is not the type of man I want to be president of the USA – its as simple as that when taken in a nutshell.

Posted by: SevenT at October 16, 2004 07:31 AM

Jatsby - “Again and again, many people in this forum blow smoke out of their collective asses instead of addressing things by legitimate debate or even clear thought.”

Just where do you stand on CollectivistSmoke?

Kerry is openly Pro-Abortion. Kerry has lied as part of the Public Record. He has been disingenuous as to the Official Record of his numerous exploits during his service in Vietnam.

Yup. Right up there at the top of the Smokin’ Asses is Senator Kerry himself.

In this case, (OT), Senator made a comment in a very public forum. I have to consider THE SOURCE as well as the message. There is no need to go farther than ‘the fair game’.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 16, 2004 12:57 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 16, 2004 10:38 AM

“fair” => allowed
“game” => the target in a hunt

(“Game” here does NOT refer to an entertainment!)

Posted by: gus3 at October 16, 2004 01:42 PM

lol….

Your hypocrisy is so pure I almost have to admire it. You’re still going to trot out the Swifties as a source of anything besides 100% sour grapes crap? Knock yourself out…it’s dead and should never have had a breath of life to it.

Kerry is pro-Constitution, and as he clearly said in small words, abortion is protected by the Constitution, and as President he would defend the Constitution. Twist that however you will, it’s a very simple principle and he was very clear about it. The comment he made about Cheney’s daughter was also very clear, and it was not unkind…Cheney himself thanked Edwards for saying essentially the same thing when they faced each other. You’re basically saying that being a lesbian is itself a horrible thing, and so saying so is equally horrible…but you say more about yourself if you think that way. What’s the big deal that she’s a lesbian? And remember, she is openly campaigning alongside her father (her father who has previously stated how proud he is of her before he could use her this way) so this isn’t some outing issue or skeleton in the closet. It’s a lie and deceitful to say this is shocking to anyone, and to try to use it this way. So you want Mary Cheney to have fewer rights than me or you….well, assuming you’re straight. I don’t think that’s right…and remember, he was answering directly the question about whether he thought being gay was a choice, it wasn’t like he just pulled her out of the air. And he never said he was any kind of authority on the issue….this is just more hot wind to blow to blur anything actually important happening, like the 10 more soldiers killed this week, or the entire squad being arrested right now because they refused to drive in dangerous, poorly maintained vehicles through a killzone. John Kerry didn’t lie about her war record and denigrate her service to the country. He simply stated something Dick Cheney already told us, and he complimented her for it.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 16, 2004 05:45 PM

I don’t see what’s got everyone so excited. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em (and vice versa, I’m sure).

Posted by: j at October 16, 2004 05:46 PM

I read the ABC article on the poll, because I suspected it was a push-poll. Interestingly, the heading here at CC is pretty misleading…very few indeed “condemned” the comment, and most agreed with the content of it. A majority of 4% thought it was “inappropriate” that it was framed the way it was but again, a majority agreed with the comment. Hardly true that a “majority condemn” the comment…a prime example of “exaggeration”, as the president would say.

I’m thinking this is just an oily way to try to smoke around all the draft talk that’s starting to be in the open now….

Posted by: Jatsby at October 16, 2004 06:32 PM

Jatsby, I don’t doubt that Kerry could have said that abortion is protected by the constitution. But just because he used words to that effect doesn’t mean it is so. Remember, this is the man that told the senate that US troops raped, tortured and killed Vietnamese as a matter of course. He then tried to wiggle out of that one by saying he was simply quoting others. It turned out that many of these others had either never even served in the military, or had never been near combat in Vietnam.

The constitution is trotted out mainly by the left wing, but often by Democrats as a so-called justification for many of the more radical ideas they wish to motivate.

I’d rather you quote the actual section of the constitution itself that supports abortion, rather than parrot a politician. If all you are able to do to further your argument is to say that someone else says its so, then you obviously haven’t looked too deeply into the matter at all.

And while we are on the constitution, could you also specifically quote any part of it that says that every American is actually entitled to vote. No doubt after this upcoming election we are again going to hear a lot from Democrats about “disenfranchised” people. I for one would certainly like to know where their franchise is enshrined in this constitution that you say Kerry supports so avidly.

As for your statement implying that this argument embodies the assumption that some of us think that “being a lesbian is itself a horrible thing”, let’s have a look at what has really happened here and why many Americans feel that Kerry crossed a line.

The very constitution that you claim Kerry so supports says that all men are created equal. If all men are equal, why did Kerry single out a specific person by name, and place that person into a group? That is the line that was crossed. Cheney’s daughter was never even remotely part of the question that was asked.

Yes, we do need to address groups in some ways, if for no other reason than to define that they are going to be treated equally as per the constitution. In the debate Bush was asked if he thought that homosexuals chose to follow that bent. His answer was candid, and general.

What about Kerry? Not only did he not give his own thoughts on this, he chose to single out one particular person in front of the whole of the United States, place that person into a controversial group, and then profess to speak on her behalf. How ridiculously shallow and uncompassionate is that? Remember, this is the same man that told us we need to conduct a more sensitive war against terrorists.

Perhaps this form of sensitivity is beyond Kerry’s and your comprehension, but for the record this is what generated the widespread “cheap shot” calls.

Posted by: SevenT at October 16, 2004 08:57 PM

Seven….you give a perfect example of how someone willingly twists the clear to their own dogma. It was the Supreme Court of the United States, in affirming Roe v. Wade, that the guarantee of liberty in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends a right to privacy “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Contest that however you choose.

Kerry announced At The Beginning of his congressional testimony that he would be reading statements he had gathered from others, he didn’t attempt to “wiggle out” of it later…that is also very clear and on record, and to attempt to blur or smear that is blatantly dishonest on your part. And you know, I wouldn’t mind at all if the right wing would “trot out the constitution” every once in awhile too, if only so they can get a look at it.

I can only assume you’re asking about the “right to vote” because you recall that in the 2000 election, even though the “right” to vote is the supreme right in a democracy, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded lawyers there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia besieged Gore’s lawyer with inquiries premised on the assumption there is no constitutional right of suffrage in the election of a president, and state legislatures have the legal power to choose presidential electors without recourse to a popular vote. If Bush had lost in the Supreme Court, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature was prepared to ignore the 6 million popular votes cast in Florida and elect their own “Bush presidential electors” and send them to Congress for certification. Thus, even if all votes had been counted and Gore had won Florida’s popular vote, and his electors had been sent to Congress; under our current Constitution the Florida legislature could have sent their slate of Bush electors to Congress and it would have been perfectly legal, and a necessary constitutional interpretation, for Congress to have recognized the Bush electors. That’s all true, and why 3 separate amendments have had to be put in place so far to help cement that implied right in place, with a 4th coming soon I’m sure. The constitution does not say all men are equal; it parses between freemen and slaves as to their worth…that is why work continues to perfect that growing document, to extend freedoms…not to limit them.

Putting a person’s name to a label personalizes things, it doesn’t demonize them. Cheney himself frequently mentions Mary as his ‘gay daughter’ on the campaign trail when he is trying to paint his party as compassionate conservatives, so being used is nothing new. He can pimp her out to his political agenda when he wants, but can then claim “foul!” when someone else points out the obvious? As I said before, it’s rank hypocrisy…Bush is trying actively to ban gay marriage with a rare amendment to the Constitution. Neither Dick nor Mary Cheney will publicly condemn this move, with the Vice-President muttering that he loves his daughter and supports his President. Untenable?

Posted by: Jatsby at October 17, 2004 12:07 AM

Ban gay marriage, forsooth!

Pray tell, what legislature passed a law saying men could marry men, or women could marry women?

That is my own position on the legality of gay marriage. When a fundamental underpinning of our culture, one that preexists our government, is changed by the popular will, as opposed to judicial fiat, then I will support gay marriage.

I know of no Western nation, before the twenty-first century, that allowed marriages between men or between women. You cannot ban something in this country that has never existed.

You can certainly implement gay marriage, and should such an initiative come on the ballot in my state I intend to vote for it.

Dick Cheney’s position may well be similar, but it is a bit too nuanced for the left-wing to readily comprehend, I suppose. Once a group recieves Designated Victim Status, the left falls all over itself trying to give it whatever it wants, or whatever the left claims it wants.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at October 19, 2004 03:28 PM