Is it proper to drag her into it?

[Chris Alger]

You're both wrong. It was political genius, and probably not as off-hand as Kerry suggested (witness the double shot by both Dem. candidates).

1. It forced GOP flacks to make a tough call. If they say nothing, they alienate the Christian right, a core but fickle constituency. If they complain about a "low blow," they admit their tether to the Christian right and their need to pander to anti-gay prejudice. This tends to alienate the anti-fundamentalist libertarian right and various centrists, other key constituencies.

2. The first pro-Bush responses underscored the degree Republicans are willing to pander to the homophobes, demonstrated by the right wing pundits' outrage and terror. If they'll take away the Vice President's daughter's right to have a legal mate, you can imagine what they'll take away from you. One Bush supporter even predicted that Kerry will have to "apologize," as if he had falsely accused Republicans of breeding contemptible lesbians.

3. It underscores GOP defensiveness about the gay issue. Everyone knows that Mary Cheney has been out for years, even her Dad mentioned it publicly while campaiging. The hysterical claim that Kerry has crossed some "line" simply shows how scared they are of the topic whenever it goes beyond platitudes about "protecting" marriage and family values.

4. There's no downside for Kerry-Edwards. Just about everyone that backs Kerry would like more attention given to Mary Cheney's sexual preference. In addition to the reasons above, they'd also like to show the Christian bigots that their own leaders don't believe that homosexuality is something that needs to be closeted or "cured." Further, as this thread shows and charged by the Log Cabin Republicans, the outrage is mostly feigned by those already loyal to Bush.

It paints the GOP as the bigot party while discouraging Christian rightists from voting. That's why the Bush people are so angry. They got outplayed.

[MMMMMM]

Even if all you say above is/were true, it wouldn't change the fact that it's a rather insensitive, crude, low-class sort of thing to say in public, and a cheap shot of sorts. Even Andy Fox agrees with this I think. It just isn't the sort of thing I would say to an audience anywhere, even at the poker table. That it is common knowledge that she is gay doesn't much change my take on this.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if all you say above is/were true, it wouldn't change the fact that it's a rather insensitive, crude, low-class sort of thing to say in public, and a cheap shot of sorts. Even Andy Fox agrees with this I think. It just isn't the sort of thing I would say to an audience anywhere, even at the poker table. That it is common knowledge that she is gay doesn't much change my take on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond to Andy's several posts on this but your point serves as just a good jumping off point. To all you who thinks mentioning Mary Cheney is low or offensive, you need to ask yourself what is so offensive. It is only offensive if there is something shameful about being gay. If not (and the Kerry/Edwards position would clearly be this) then there is nothing embarrassing about this. It may not be appropo of much, but it is hardly offensive. In the first debate each of Bush and Kerry made innocuous references to the other's family members so mentioning family memebrs is not per se off limits. If Kerry had mentioned that Laura Bush was a librarian in the context of a question about education would everyobody have said that was a low blow, you can't use the president's wife as an example period. No. It is only if you think that there is something bad about the characteristic that is being described that would lead you to believe that it shouldn't be mentioned so as not to embarrass someone. But Kerry's point is that being gay is not a choice and is not something shameful.

The gay conservative Andrew Sullivan summarized this all much better than I am able to:

"All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose."

[andyfox]

Offensive and stupid.

[theBruiser500]

It's not offensive, don't be so sensitive. What I thought was funny was the response from her mother which went something like, "He is a bad man, john kerry is a bad man."

[andyfox]

How is the sexual choice of the daughter of the vice president something that should be brought up in a presidential debate? I'm voting for Kerry and I found it offensive. What was his reason for mentioning her?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm voting for Kerry and I found it offensive. What was his reason for mentioning her?

[/ QUOTE ]

If something is said once in an extemporaneous situation, it could be a minor slip in judgement. When both Edwards and Kerry bring up Cheney's daughter's sexuality in their biggest TV national exposure, in obviously prepared comments, methinks there is a purpose and a strategy there.

At the risk of being cynical, these guys used a private family situation to show the hard-core right that the Republican administration is not unified in total opposition to gay marriage, and to hint that Cheney is a hyocrite in espousing opposition to gay marriage while having a gay daughter. Whatever people think of Cheney's politics, he always appears to be sincere and a gentleman, and to take the high road. He didn't deserve to have his private family life dragged into the national spotlight.

This was another case of Kerry saying anything that he thought would get him some votes. Well, he ain't getting mine. But then neither is Bush, so there [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
Offensive and stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree and I would bet that Kerry probably wishes he had that one back.

There was no reason to bring her specifically into his point. HOwever I am working really hard this election on giving both candidates the benfit of the doubt and trying to avoid demonizing them. To that end I think that Kerry didn't mean to be offensive and just made a mistake.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There was no reason to bring her specifically into his point. HOwever I am working really hard this election on giving both candidates the benfit of the doubt and trying to avoid demonizing them. To that end I think that Kerry didn't mean to be offensive and just made a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

The intention of a statement like this is to weaken Bush's base. The are some on right who probably frown upon Cheney(and therefore the ticket) because of his lesbian daughter.

Stu

[andyfox]

"There are some on right who probably frown upon Cheney(and therefore the ticket) because of his lesbian daughter."

Undoubtedly there are some who frown upon Cheney because of his daughter, but will they really, therefore, vote for Kerry, the most liberal member of the Senate? If it was indeed an attempt to weaken Bush's base, it was ill-thought.