Is it proper to drag her into it?

[SnakeRat]

Kerry is saying gay people will attest to the fact that they don't choose to be gay. It is an attempt to illustrate how stupid Bush's stance is.

Bush's right hand man is a close family member of a gay person, how could he not know that people don't choose to be gay?

Its pretty clear he just doesn't want to lose the bigot portion of his voting base.

As for Mrs Cheney for saying he is a "Bad Man" for mentioning that her daughter is a lesbian. Dick Cheney himself thanked Edwards for kind words which included making the very same mention.




My illustration.

Kerry:
Cheney's daughter is a lesbian who did not choose to be gay.

Mrs Cheney:
OMG HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH A THING!?!?! You bad bad man.

[El Barto]

Poll Shows Disapproval of Reference to Cheney's Daughter

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.

Kerry mentioned that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian in response to a question from moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News asking the candidates if they believed "homosexuality is a choice?"

After President Bush had answered that he "did not know," Kerry began by saying, " . . . 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."

After the debate, Lynne Cheney attacked Kerry for raising the issue of her daughter's sexuality during the debate. Both Cheneys have been open about their daughter's sexual orientation, which had been briefly mentioned by Sen. John Edwards and Cheney in the vice presidential debate the previous week.

Margin of sampling error is plus or minus six percentage points for the question asking views on Kerry's comment about Cheney's daughter, which was asked only of those interviewed Thursday night.

[garyc8]

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[PhatTBoll]

Was this comment out of line? Maybe a little. But I think it's clear now that it was a mistake and Kerry is paying a price for it.
The comment doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that Democrats will make statements like this and then point fingers at Republicans for using "wedge issues" to divide the voters.
Both parties do this. All the time. It's called politics. Deal.

[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."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not accurate. First of all I don't think it was offensive, I think it was low. There is a difference. Secondly it appears Kerry was likely trying to use her cynically as a pawn to drive a wedge between Bush and his far Christian Right supporters. Now that I find offensive.

[vulturesrow]

Unfortunately you (and Andrew Sullivan) miss the real point this bothers people. 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.

Also, all you people who are reading all these "nuanced" meanings in Kerry's words, nice try. 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? No youd probably just state your opinion. 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.

[MMMMMM]

"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."

Precisely, but not if you live in a topsy-turvy world.