Is it proper to drag her into it?

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people think using the other candidates children as a political football isnt right. Its been an unwritten rule of presidential elections for a long time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but this is absolutely not the case here. Kerry stated a plain fact, that Cheney's daughter is gay, and that it probably wasn't a choice. I don't here her arguing against this. Also, it's not like he "outed her." It's already public knowledge that she's gay, and THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HER BEING GAY. You're acting like Kerry mentioned that Bush's daughters got busted for under age drinking. This would be a great legitimate example of a very unethical low blow which would deserve great outrage.

[ QUOTE ]
I havent seen one person give a logical reason why when asked "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" You immediately bring up a certain individual. If someone asked you that, would you answer in the fashion that Kerry did?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's smart to put a human face on an issue such as this. Both candidates have cited numerous individuals when answering several debate questions, and rightly so. This is very common and basic debate strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
It was an attempt by Kerry to score some tactical point and blew up in his face. Contrary to Chris Alger's claim, the Bush camp did not get "outplayed." Rather, Kerry overplayed his hand by underestimating the negative reaction this would generate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, Kerry brought up her name to score tactical points, just like he and Bush have done whenever citing an individual's name in answering debate questions.

As far as this "blowing up in his face," I don't get it. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I've personally eliminated all bigoted and predudicial views in my life, and often I forget that most Americans are not nearly as enlightened. The true moral outrage with regards to this issue, is that Cheney is selling out, and not supporting his daughter as he should. I'm not questioning his love for his daughter, but I'm deeply critical of his basic character.

When I have children, I don't care if they're born straight or gay, I'll support them to the fullest of my ability for the remainder of my life in all situations. From a moral perspective, Cheney has failed miserably. Dick Cheney's running mate Bush has openly supported an amendment to the Constitution which violates Cheney's daughter's basic civil rights, and he still supports the guy. This is absolutely irreprehensible. If Cheney couldn't get Bush to back down on this one, there's no way he should have accepted the nomination to be vice president for a 2nd term--he should of resigned in protest. Cheney has piss poor family values.

[Chris Alger]

Well put.

[ QUOTE ]
Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is contradictory insanity. Which party gets the pandering award on this topic? GOP conservatives and their Christian supporters have crossed the country spreading the alarm that gay rights "threaten" straights. Their complaint about reminding voters about Mary Cheney's status amounts to a complaint that their message has been received. If the GOP suffers due to antigay bigotry, the wound is self-inflicted.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but this is absolutely not the case here. Kerry stated a plain fact, that Cheney's daughter is gay, and that it probably wasn't a choice. I don't here her arguing against this. Also, it's not like he "outed her." It's already public knowledge that she's gay, and THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HER BEING GAY. You're acting like Kerry mentioned that Bush's daughters got busted for under age drinking. This would be a great legitimate example of a very unethical low blow which would deserve great outrage.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously read, but didnt comprehend my post. The fact that he mentioned Mary Cheney being gay isnt why people think its low. Its because he used the Cheney's daughter to score some sort of political points. You can change it to anything you want, whether Mary Cheney was alcoholic, was a closet liberal, got arrested, etc, it doesnt matter what it was.

[Chris Alger]

So while mentioning her lesbianism doesn't imply shame and dishonor, it's nevertheless similar to claiming she's a drunk, criminal or hypocrite. Pity how people fail to comprehend the plain meaning of your posts.

[vulturesrow]

I figured someone would try that tack. I used some poor examples. The thrust of my argument is that people dont like seeing peoples' kids used to try to score political points. I would have found it equally as low if Bush had been asked a question about marriage and Bush said in response, "Well Senator Kerry's first wife would say blah blah blah".

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but this is absolutely not the case here. Kerry stated a plain fact, that Cheney's daughter is gay, and that it probably wasn't a choice. I don't here her arguing against this. Also, it's not like he "outed her." It's already public knowledge that she's gay, and THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HER BEING GAY. You're acting like Kerry mentioned that Bush's daughters got busted for under age drinking. This would be a great legitimate example of a very unethical low blow which would deserve great outrage.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously read, but didnt comprehend my post. The fact that he mentioned Mary Cheney being gay isnt why people think its low. Its because he used the Cheney's daughter to score some sort of political points. You can change it to anything you want, whether Mary Cheney was alcoholic, was a closet liberal, got arrested, etc, it doesnt matter what it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your statement the majority of the time, but when it is a fundamental moral issue such as this, where one can clearly see the personal hypocrisy, it is not off limits, nor should it be. Can you see why?

I'll give a hypothetical example. Lets assume that the Cheneys' had an adopted African-American son (no laughs please). Lets also assume that Bush had come out during his first term as an avid supporter of racial profiling, in an effort to deter crime (or so he claims). During the debate, the question posed to Kerry is about racial profiling, and what his opinion is on the issue. He says he's against it, and cites Cheney's adopted African-American son specifically, saying neither he nor any other American should be subjected to racial profiling. Would you consider this a low blow? If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I'm of the opinion that a candidate should not reference the opponents' children to score political points, unless it's morally correct to do so, such as with regards to Mary Cheney and the hypothetical example I illustrated. It appears you're of the opinion that it is never correct to reference one's opponents' children to score political points, even if it is morally justified. If I'm wrong about your opinion with regards to my last statement, please let me know.