False indignation remains cornerstone of post-debate strateg

[Secret Squirrel]

For reasons known only to America's leading conservative thinkers, it is far more offensive to utter an inconsequential truth than to tell a long series of important falsehoods. Or so we are learning in the wake of the final Presidential debate, as Republicans and their noisemakers proclaim grave indignation over John Kerry's innocuous reference to the ****** preference of Mary Cheney.

On the pages of The New York Times, William Safire damns Mr. Kerry for inflicting "the lowest blow" and David Brooks indicts him for using "somebody's daughter to attack the father and his running mate." In The Weekly Standard, William Kristol shrieks about the "shameless, ruthless, calculating cruelty" in the Democrat's "McCarthyite" mention of Ms. Cheney, claiming that it proves he should not be elected President. From print and talk radio and cable television, the furious right-wingers roar in unison, as if Mr. Kerry had exposed a dire family secret and ruined a young woman's life.

Could this helpless victim possibly be the same Mary Cheney who has been "out" for at least the past five years? Isn't this the same Ms. Cheney who hired herself in 1999 to the Coors Brewing Company as a professional liaison to the gay community, so that the damaging boycott of Coors beer in gay and lesbian bars might be calmed? Isn't this the lesbian daughter to whom **** Cheney referred so proudly in a speech last summer? Isn't she the Cheney daughter who shows up at public events with her female partner? Isn't she the daughter whose acceptance by her family was praised during that debate by John Edwards, in a gracious exchange with her father?

No harm was intended or done to Ms. Cheney or her family by Mr. Kerry's remark. Fake indignation has become a standard feature of post-debate spin by Republicans whenever they feel that their man did poorly. They played the same game on Al Gore in 2000, with considerable help from their press claque, by focusing on minor errors that they transformed into falsehoods. Now they hope that this degrading charade will erase George W. Bush's inadequate performance at the podium by stirring phony anger over the "lesbian" remark -- which scarcely drew any attention in the first flush of Mr. Kerry's decisive debating victories.

It is remarkable indeed that the Cheney remark could obscure the truly stunning moment in the last debate, when the President claimed that he had never expressed a lack of concern about Osama bin Laden -- when the videotape showed that was exactly what he had said two years ago. And it is amazing, too, that the President can get away with denying that he has made any serious mistakes during his first term, when the disastrous errors are so obvious.

But Mr. Bush need not worry that serious scrutiny will be applied to his speeches or utterances. On Oct. 18, in what was dubiously billed by the White House as a "major foreign-policy address," he said things about his opponent which might more aptly be described by terms like "shameless" and even "McCarthyite." His "major speech" was nothing more than the same old catalog of misleading charges and plain falsehoods that Republicans have been repeating with increasing shrillness since their national convention.

"Senator Kerry has a record of trying to weaken American intelligence," said the President, as if the Democrat has spent his career trying to undermine American national security. He cited cuts in funding for intelligence agencies, without mentioning that his own new C.I.A. director, Porter Goss, had voted for bigger cuts as a member of Congress.

"Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit," said the President, as if Mr. Kerry had not vowed repeatedly to hunt down the terrorists who continue to threaten us.

"Senator Kerry believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror," said the President, as if his opponent had not repeatedly -- and at some political cost -- made plain his commitment to a stable Iraqi government.

And he repeated the canard from the first debate about the "global test" that would influence Mr. Kerry's security policy. "As far as I can tell, it comes down to this: Before we act to defend ourselves, he thinks we need permission from foreign capitals," said the President. That is false, and Mr. Bush knows it. Yet he can say such things with impunity because he also knows that they won't excite the kind of outrage they deserve.

It isn't surprising that the President and his surrogates would try to deflect attention from his record with strained and misleading rhetoric. It certainly isn't surprising that they would try to distract the voters and the press with a bogus "issue" like the "lesbian" flap. It is disappointing that they can engage in such obvious manipulations and distortions with the smug expectation of easy success.

[California Joe]

They all need to spend time in a Tom of Finland thread.

WTF? Are they ashamed that Cheneys daughter is a rug muncher? BFD. It's not like they asked Bush about his Anna Kornikova wannabee sorority daughters or the fact that his wife looks like she's an ugly extra on the Stepford Wives.

[priccobe]

Source? Or which website linked you to this?

1. Daily Kos
2. Talking Points Memo
3. DNC Website
4. MichaelMoore.com
5. Atrios
6. Democratic Underground
7. Juan Cole
8. Talk Left
9. Smirking Chimp

Or Feel Free to post your "Tom Tomorrow" cartoon about questioning someone's patriotism again!!! :D :D :D

[California Joe]

Who gives a ****, read what's in it and rebutt it. The indignation is totally phony. Newsflash, they knew she liked girls. Of course Kerry brought it up to show how narrowminded Cheneys boss is. Duh. It's politics.

[Mark Sman]

Actually, going after family has generally been taboo in such things. Not always though. Their have been POS in the past that have done, and it will happen again in the future.

Considered bad form on both sides of the aisle by people with any class at all.

[Secret Squirrel]

Actually, going after family has generally been taboo in such things. Not always though. Their have been POS in the past that have done, and it will happen again in the future.

Considered bad form on both sides of the aisle by people with any class at all.

You mean something like spreading rumors that a certain person fathered a "colored bastard child"?

[Mark Sman]

ou mean something like spreading rumors that a certain person fathered a "colored bastard child"?

Sort of, actually targetting the child is far worse than spreading the rumor. But if the rumor is spread, and true, eventually the child will be targeted.

In Strom Thurmond's case for instance this was covered up for so long, that the "child" was like 78 when it was revealed, and she was the one that revealed it. After her father's death.

[Secret Squirrel]

ou mean something like spreading rumors that a certain person fathered a "colored bastard child"?

Sort of, actually targetting the child is far worse than spreading the rumor. But if the rumor is spread, and true, eventually the child will be targeted.

In Strom Thurmond's case for instance this was covered up for so long, that the "child" was like 78 when it was revealed, and she was the one that revealed it. After her father's death.

And in the case of McCain? Some would argue that it was one of the bigger factors which explained why Bush came out on top of McCain in 2000. Of course, suggestions that McCain wasnt "mentally stable" because of his war experience also caused some trouble.

[Mark Sman]

Never heard that one before. Doubt it's true. Otherwise it would all have come out. See that would be the worst part. Some poor kid out their would have schmucks with cameras following him.

Starting a BS rumor is less dangerous than a real one. Realo ones have a tendancy to blow up on you.

Actually never heard either rumor.

[Secret Squirrel]

Never heard that one before. Doubt it's true. Otherwise it would all have come out. See that would be the worst part. Some poor kid out their would have schmucks with cameras following him.

In 2000, the Bush campaign ran a push poll asking, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" You see, McCain has an adopted child who's originally from Bangladesh. There was also the "whisper campaign" that said McCain wasnt stable enough to be president because of the torture he endured when he was a P.O.W. Why do you think, when the first time McCain and Bush had a photo op outside airforce one earlier this year, the press was mentioning their bitter primary battles in 2000?

An article written by McCain's campaign manager at the time;

John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"
link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/)

[Trigger]

They all need to spend time in a Tom of Finland thread.

WTF? Are they ashamed that Cheneys daughter is a rug muncher? BFD. It's not like they asked Bush about his Anna Kornikova wannabee sorority daughters or the fact that his wife looks like she's an ugly extra on the Stepford Wives.
Well hell, if we're gonna compare the wives you could've at least mentioned the fact that Theresa Heinz-Kerry came in second place when trying out for the role of 'Bigfoot' in Harry and the Hendersons...

No really. The press totally covered it up... p-)

[Mark Sman]

From the article you quoted:

We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

I'd be more likely to believe the Democrats did it than Bush. The Democrats had far more to fear from McCain as a candidate than Bush.

And I live in the South, where if this thing was supposed to have legs, is where it played out

Also I never heard the "whisper campaign". Pretty weak to blame this on Bush, actually no better than the smear campaign itself.

[Secret Squirrel]

From the article you quoted:

We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

I'd be more liely to believe the Democrats did it than Bush. The Democrats had far more to fear from McCain as a candidate than Bush.

And I live in the South, where if this thing was supposed to have legs, is where it played out

Also I never heard the "whisper campaign". Pretty weak to blame this on Bush, actually no better than the smear campaign itself.

Oh yea my mistake, it must have been the democrats. rofl I should have known better than to try and explain something to a Bush apologist. You make this sound like what I've mentioned is a big secret or something. Anyway, you're free to believe what you want I guess.

[Mark Sman]

I'm not a Bush apologist. I just pointed out some very obvious things. You are free to "think" anytime you feel like it by the way.

[Hot Lips]

Actually, going after family has generally been taboo in such things. Not always though. Their have been POS in the past that have done, and it will happen again in the future.

Considered bad form on both sides of the aisle by people with any class at all.

Should he have skipped using a specific person as an example in his debate response? Yes. But, he didn't "go after" a family member. He was not attacking Mary Cheney. What he went after was the difference between his views on the subject versus the Presidents. He stated that he supported her rights even if he did not share her beliefs. Funny, the Cheney's, Mary included, didn't have a problem with anyone knowing their daughter was gay until it embarrassed the President.

[Trigger]

The President was embarrassed by this?
I must've missed that.

[Hot Lips]

Rose colored glasses. Of course it embarrased him - or rather it should. He wants to impose his personal religious beliefs on others.

Why else the disingenuous backlash from the Cheney's over a statement of support for their daughter?

[Trigger]

Someone has to be the optimist. :D

[Mark Sman]

My opinion is you leave family off such things altogether. That's just me.

[mocking_loudly_died]

You guys should see this sandwich I made, It's got ham, chicken turkey, some lettuce, onions, Swiss cheese, mustard and pepper......what Cheney’s daughter is a F*CKING LESBIAN!!!..... now after this sandwich I'm going to make a pot of tea, earl gray due to my lineage.

[Trigger]

Rose colored glasses. Of course it embarrased him - or rather it should. He wants to impose his personal religious beliefs on others.

Why else the disingenuous backlash from the Cheney's over a statement of support for their daughter?
Rose colored blinders.

[Mark Sman]

I don't give a damn if it embarassed the president. I could care not at all if it embarassed **** Cheney. Or got them removed from office. Whatever.

But he has no right to talk about Mary Cheney's life. It's just none of his fcking business.

Its just a way of living. But it makes for good neighbors. Where I live, you'll find that you get belted in the nose far less often if you learn to leave other folk's family out of your business discussions with them.

"So I can get you a good price on this unit, by the way hows the lesbian daughter doing?"

Belt. . .thump

[mocking_loudly_died]

All this indignation and yet know one wants to see my sandwich?

[Secret Squirrel]

BOSTON -- Let me see if I have this right. The Republicans are now accusing the Democrats of being insensitive to gay Americans? Or to one gay American at least?

After John Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney in the third debate, talk radio hosts finally found a lesbian they wanted to protect. Even the homophobic wing of cable TV rallied to the support of a family with a gay offspring.

Meanwhile **** Cheney described himself as "a pretty angry father." And Lynne Cheney said of the senator: "This is not a good man."

What's wrong with this picture?

Remember way back in the 1980s, when **** Cheney racked up one of the most anti-gay voting records in the House of Representatives? In 1988, he was one of 13 members who even voted against funding for AIDS testing and research when it was still called a "gay plague." Well, Cheney's come as far as many other Americans, and for the same essential reason. The more people in our families, workplaces and communities come out of the closet, the harder it is to regard them as deviants who need to be cured or converted or jailed.

Mary was by no means outed on national television. She was already out. She lives with a longtime partner, wears a ring, and has worked professionally marketing Coors beer to the gay community.

She and Heather Poe sat at the convention under the camera lights with the rest of the family. She is not a "child" but the director of vice-presidential campaign operations and her father's chief confidante.

**** Cheney has talked openly about his "gay daughter," in one of the rare moments that warm his icy persona. He even opposes the constitutional amendment against same-*** marriage that the president supports so ardently.

If Cheney has an argument with anybody it's with his running mate, George Bush. But the "pretty angry father" hasn't directed any of that anger at the Republican platform he's running on.

As for Lynne Cheney, who called Kerry's comments "a cheap and tawdry political trick," what does she call the RNC mailing that warned evangelicals that if Kerry is elected the Bible will be banned and gay marriage will be the law of the land? High-minded?

At the Republican convention, Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Illinois senator, said homo******ity "is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism." When asked if Mary Cheney was a selfish hedonist, he answered "of course she is." Did Lynne call Alan Keyes a bad man?

Cheney, for his part, said that this incident proves Kerry "will say and do anything in order to get elected." What about the anti-gay-marriage amendments gracing the ballot of 11 states, including swing states like Ohio? Did he criticize the campaign's use of the gay issue to get evangelicals to the polls? Who will say and do anything to get elected?

And two days after the debate there was a rally in Washington dubbed "Mayday for Marriage." The "nonpartisan" crowd full of Bush-Cheney buttons was as anti-gay as it gets. Did I miss it when the candidates distanced themselves from Mayday?

Mary Cheney is an endangered species, a gay Republican in a campaign so hostile that even the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Bush this year. She is loyal to her father, who is loyal to the president.

Is it any wonder that many people in the gay community think she is working for the enemy? There is even a milk carton posted on the Internet that asks the question: Have you seen her?

Yes, I am sure that Mary doesn't want to be seen as The Gay Daughter. Yes, Kerry could have made his point -- that homo******ity is not a choice -- without her help. And yes, the impulse to give a candidate's families some space and privacy is the right one.

But what Mary presumably wants in terms of privacy and acceptance is at heart of the gay community's pursuit of full and equal rights, which her party opposes. It's the people who still regard "lesbian" as a dirty word who most criticized the senator for using it.

So here we have it. The Republicans are using gay-bashing on a culture warpath back to the White House while they spin this story so masterfully that they look like the sensitive protectors of a family with a gay daughter. They have actually won political points suggesting that Kerry is picking on a gay woman while they, on the other hand, have compassion for the conservative Cheneys.

Hot damn, they're good at this. The next thing you know Karl Rove and & Co. will figure out a way for the candidate who (sort of) served in the Air National Guard to win political points over the decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. They might even try to tarnish his purple hearts.

Aw, no, they wouldn't go that far.

Ellen Goodman

[Mark Sman]

It is so simple.

Leave other people's families out of business. If you don't think this is good advice, give it a try sometime.

Ask a client how his son's rehab is going.

People are not, and never will be, unemotional about their families. The instict is to protect family no matter what.

Fck with it at your own risk if you like. Other folks will just think you are a rude clod that they don't wish to associate with. Seriously, go ahead and give it a try in the professional world and come back and tell me how it goes.

[Hot Lips]

The instict is to protect family no matter what.


What are they protecting her from... Support? Understanding? Compassion for her rights?

[Mark Sman]

No, the ability to just go live her life without it becoming a national ping pong ball. Which was inevitable as soon as Kerry brought it up in a live national debate.

[Secret Squirrel]

It is so simple.


Yes it is simple; if Alan Keyes can get away with insulting Cheney's daughter, I fail to see why the Cheney's get mad because Kerry praised their daughter. ;)

[Mark Sman]

Not to mention, why the hell is talking about my buddy's daughter in any case, for whatever reason?

[Mark Sman]

Never mind. Its obvious this is one of those things you either get or you don't get.

Some people will understand that in a professional setting the other peoples families are out off bounds. Some folks won't. Yes, it is that simple.

Thankfully we have direct corrective actions to bring such folks into line where I live. Even if you don't "get" the rule, you will follow it.

[Hot Lips]

No, the ability to just go live her life without it becoming a national ping pong ball. Which was inevitable as soon as Kerry brought it up in a live national debate.

The only person making her a ping-pong is Bush as far as I see it. Kerry and Cheney are on the same side of the ping-pong table on this issue.

Mary Cheney is a 35 year old woman who put herself in the public eye long before the 3rd debate in her job as a liason to the gay community for Coors and by involving herself in her fathers politics. Her father too has put her in the public eye by speaking about his support of her in the past.

[Mark Sman]

I'm telling you, if you think I'm far wrong just give it a little try out at work or in some other formal or proffesional setting.

Guaranteed to go over like a led sled.

[Secret Squirrel]

The instict is to protect family no matter what.


What are they protecting her from... Support? Understanding? Compassion for her rights?

Someone has to protect her from the republicans and their anti-gay agenda. I cant imagine Alan Keyes being invited over for a family dinner.

[Hot Lips]

I'm telling you, if you think I'm far wrong just give it a little try out at work or in some other formal or proffesional setting.

Guaranteed to go over like a led sled.

I have talked to co-workers about their family members. And I've never had anyone get upset with me for expressing understanding and support for their loved ones problems/beliefs/whatever.

According to Lynn Cheney, Kerry is a bad man for expressing support and understanding for the issues their daughter is an activist for in her own career.

[Mark Sman]

Did you bring it up in a public meeting when official notes where being taken?

Possibly with members or clients from outside the firm present?

Did you say it about someone who is an opponent of yours at that meeting?

Did you bring it up out of the blue when nobody had said so much as a word about it during the whole meeting.

Thats what this situation is similar to. Not a polite word of support to a friend at the office.

[Mark Sman]

If I was Kerry, I would just talk to the Cheney family. Tell them I'm not going to speak about her anymore. I'd apologize if I caused their family grief.

Then the matter would be closed for me, and I would never speak of it again.

That's all. Heck, he may have done just that, and we'll never know.

[Secret Squirrel]

If Kerry was a republican, he could say whatever he wanted to about Cheney's daughter. It's amusing that the Cheney's bitch about their daughter being used as a political trick when in reality they're the ones using her.

[Mark Sman]

Which is why they talk about Kerry and Edward's children all the time.

Ummmmm, survey says, No.

[Secret Squirrel]

Which is why they talk about Kerry and Edward's children all the time.

Ummmmm, survey says, No.

You can be a bush apologist all you want. You can deny reality and play it off like you tried to about what happened to McCain. But the fact remains, "Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Illinois senator, said homo******ity "is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism." When asked if Mary Cheney was a selfish hedonist, he answered "of course she is." Did Lynne call Alan Keyes a bad man?"

[Mark Sman]

Probably, and probably because they have better access to him I bet she did it to his face. I would.

Oh and by the way, I'm not a "Bush apologist." But if labelling people makes you happy, by all means continue.

Also, if you don't get why its a bad idea to bring people kids into this stuff, either read my previous posts, or go on behaving the way you want.

[Mark Sman]

Oh, and the "Someone else did it" defense is null after the sixth grade. Just so you know.

[Secret Squirrel]

Probably, and probably because they have better access to him I bet she did it to his face. I would.

Oh and by the way, I'm not a "Bush apologist." But if labelling people makes you happy, by all means continue.

Also, if you don't get why its a bad idea to bring people kids into this stuff, either read my previous posts, or go on behaving the way you want.

Considering that the label fits (you just did it again in the above quote), then I think i'll continue to use it. Yes you've rambled in a couple posts the same thing, apparently forgetting sometimes that you could even edit your post, and you've not really said anything. Please, feel free to post a couple more rambles. You can have the last word for your last apology if you want.

[Mark Sman]

It would be hard to imagine a more partisan apologist than yourself squirrel. Honestly most of what you post doesn't make sense even inside the same post.

This is one of those things that you either get or don't. Since you don't I'm going to guess you probably don't have kids.

Ramble on bro, I'm done with you and this thread.

[Hot Lips]

Oh, and the "Someone else did it" defense is null after the sixth grade. Just so you know.

Not at all. It shows that they are not genuine in their indignation. If they are "defending" their daughter (from Kerry's show of support)... why pick and choose when to do so? Because they are not protecting their 35 year old daughter from John Kerry's support, they are protecting the President and the Vice Presidents jobs from homophobes within their party and voter base that think lesbian is a dirty word and from having people realize the irony that these supportive parents also support the Presidents efforts to limit the rights of citizens like their daughter.

[Trigger]

Oh, and the "Someone else did it" defense is null after the sixth grade. Just so you know.

Not at all. It shows that they are not genuine in their indignation. If they are "defending" their daughter (from Kerry's show of support)... why pick and choose when to do so? Because they are not protecting their 35 year old daughter from John Kerry's support, they are protecting the President and the Vice Presidents jobs from homophobes within their party and voter base that think lesbian is a dirty word and from having people realize the irony that these supportive parents also support the Presidents efforts to limit the rights of citizens like their daughter.
Based on previous posts, I know you like to see proof or evidence before making a decision about some things. However in your post you say the Cheneys are 'picking and choosing' when to be indignant. How do you know they are doing this? Because the media 'picks and chooses' what to show you and when to show it. The Cheneys could very well be doing what you say, but they could also say the exact same things whether there's a news crew nearby or not.

[Hot Lips]

Oh, and the "Someone else did it" defense is null after the sixth grade. Just so you know.

Not at all. It shows that they are not genuine in their indignation. If they are "defending" their daughter (from Kerry's show of support)... why pick and choose when to do so? Because they are not protecting their 35 year old daughter from John Kerry's support, they are protecting the President and the Vice Presidents jobs from homophobes within their party and voter base that think lesbian is a dirty word and from having people realize the irony that these supportive parents also support the Presidents efforts to limit the rights of citizens like their daughter.

Based on previous posts, I know you like to see proof or evidence before making a decision about some things. However in your post you say the Cheneys are 'picking and choosing' when to be indignant. How do you know they are doing this? Because the media 'picks and chooses' what to show you and when to show it. The Cheneys could very well be doing what you say, but they could also say the exact same things whether there's a news crew nearby or not.

Do I know for a fact that they are not consistant? All I am aware of is that they have spoken publicly about Mary's ****** orientation and opposition to admending the Constitution thereby making it a campaign issue. They thanked Edwards for his kind words of support on national TV instead of getting upset. And, when Lynn Cheney was asked by CNN what she thought about Keyes remarks she simply said "It dosn't deserve a comment". No comments about being an indignant mother included.

What was different about Kerry's words of support? Does Cheney not agree with what Kerry said anymore? Did they change their position on the issue? Weighing what is deserving of a public show of outrage and indignation "as a parent" either 1] a show of support for issues that are important to their daughter (and supposedly them) or 2] a direct and inflamatory insult about their daughter... they choose #1. IMO, 1] is about pride whereas 2] is protecting your daughter. Are they upset as parents as they profess or upset with themselves as politicians for sharing the same perspective as their opponent?

The media is "picking and choosing"? So no right controlled medias would report if the Cheney's were doing this consistantly? That's odd, oh yea, there are no right controlled media sources. ;)

[Trigger]

What was different about Kerry's words of support? Does Cheney not agree with what Kerry said anymore? Did they change their position on the issue? Weighing what is deserving of a public show of outrage and indignation "as a parent" either 1] a show of support for issues that are important to their daughter (and supposedly them) or 2] a direct and inflamatory insult about their daughter... they choose #1. IMO, 1] is about pride whereas 2] is protecting your daughter. Are they upset as parents as they profess or upset with themselves as politicians for sharing the same perspective as their opponent? What's different is that this is the second time the Kerry camp has chosen to drag Cheney's daughter into the spotlight. The first time by Edwards was met by no response during the debate because Cheney wouldn't be tricked into letting his daughter's ****** orientation become the focus of the debate. It should have ended there, but Kerry decided to be an asshole and try it again. As MarkSman said, family should be out of bounds no matter how convenient it would be to use them. It was underhanded and cheap to do it once. Doing it twice was just plain rude.

It's too bad Bush couldn't turn it around on Kerry when a domestic health question came up... Something like: "In America, we're facing an epidemic of obesity. Take for instance John Edwards' wife: She's grotesquely obese. That can't be good for her. I mean, it's not her fault she looks like a fat tub of goo. She's just being who she is, and we fully support her and her size 56 dress, and we appreciate her trying to single handedly keep Burger King in business."

The media is "picking and choosing"? So no right controlled medias would report if the Cheney's were doing this consistantly? That's odd, oh yea, there are no right controlled media sources. ;) Yes, the media is picking and choosing. Don't tell me you haven't noticed a slight bias for Kerry and against Bush. I know you pay more attention than that. ;)

[California Joe]

I wouldn't nail any of them withTrigger's****.

[Hot Lips]

I wouldn't nail any of them withTrigger's****.


rofl

[Hot Lips]

What was different about Kerry's words of support? Does Cheney not agree with what Kerry said anymore? Did they change their position on the issue? Weighing what is deserving of a public show of outrage and indignation "as a parent" either 1] a show of support for issues that are important to their daughter (and supposedly them) or 2] a direct and inflamatory insult about their daughter... they choose #1. IMO, 1] is about pride whereas 2] is protecting your daughter. Are they upset as parents as they profess or upset with themselves as politicians for sharing the same perspective as their opponent? What's different is that this is the second time the Kerry camp has chosen to drag Cheney's daughter into the spotlight. The first time by Edwards was met by no response during the debate because Cheney wouldn't be tricked into letting his daughter's ****** orientation become the focus of the debate. It should have ended there, but Kerry decided to be an asshole and try it again. As MarkSman said, family should be out of bounds no matter how convenient it would be to use them. It was underhanded and cheap to do it once. Doing it twice was just plain rude.

It's too bad Bush couldn't turn it around on Kerry when a domestic health question came up... Something like: "In America, we're facing an epidemic of obesity. Take for instance John Edwards' wife: She's grotesquely obese. That can't be good for her. I mean, it's not her fault she looks like a fat tub of goo. She's just being who she is, and we fully support her and her size 56 dress, and we appreciate her trying to single handedly keep Burger King in business."

The media is "picking and choosing"? So no right controlled medias would report if the Cheney's were doing this consistantly? That's odd, oh yea, there are no right controlled media sources. ;) Yes, the media is picking and choosing. Don't tell me you haven't noticed a slight bias for Kerry and against Bush. I know you pay more attention than that. ;)

Cheney didn't comment during the VP debate because he couldn't do so without contradicting the President or contradicting himself. Thanking Edwards for his kind words was appropriate.... but I'm sure the President and advisors coached him otherwise in the future because even saying thank you displays the fact that Cheney agrees with Kerry/Edwards on the matter. No tricks needed - Cheney contradicted the President of his own accord long before the debate.

As for the analogy regarding Elizabeth Edwards weight - there is a drastic difference between expressing support for the personal issues of a family member when that family has chosen to put their views in the media both as a career and as part of a campaign and as in your example being down right ignorant and degrading "fat tub of goo" "single handedly keeping Burger King in business" to a family member. If you can't see the difference between showing support and being insulting there is no hope.

If Elizabeth Edwards had made a point of being an advocate for a healthier America and obesity issues was the topic in the debate... I'd have no problem with Bush or Cheney commenting on her efforts to better herself and the lives of others.... again that is IF she chose to put her views on the matter in the lime light (as the Cheney's did) and advocated for the cause (as Mary does in her career) and Bush/Cheney were able to do so without insults (as in your example and as Kerry/Edwards avoided doing).

[Trigger]

spin-spin-spin
C'mon, we'll get this thing off the ground yet!

The simple fact is Kerry/Edwards dragged Mary Cheney into the debate and tried to play it off as if they were supportive of her. It was backhanded, it shouldn't have happened and it was done for the sole purpose of snickering about the lesbian daughter of a conservative.

As far as contradicting the President, these are still human beings and are free to have their own opinions and feelings about their own family members. I'm sure the Cheney's love their daughter, but that doesn't preclude them from disagreeing with her lifestyle.

[pistol]

spin-spin-spin
C'mon, we'll get this thing off the ground yet!

The simple fact is Kerry/Edwards dragged Mary Cheney into the debate and tried to play it off as if they were supportive of her. It was backhanded, it shouldn't have happened and it was done for the sole purpose of snickering about the lesbian daughter of a conservative.


Yea I remember when they burst out laughing during the debates...oh wait..

I just don't get why get why Republicans suddenly found a gay peson they give a **** about. When did conservatives start defending gay people? Oh I know, when they thought they could get a vote or two out of it.

[Hot Lips]

spin-spin-spin
C'mon, we'll get this thing off the ground yet!

The simple fact is Kerry/Edwards dragged Mary Cheney into the debate and tried to play it off as if they were supportive of her. It was backhanded, it shouldn't have happened and it was done for the sole purpose of snickering about the lesbian daughter of a conservative.


Yea I remember when they burst out laughing during the debates...oh wait..

I just don't get why get why Republicans suddenly found a gay peson they give a **** about. When did conservatives start defending gay people? Oh I know, when they thought they could get a vote or two out of it.

They don't care about her issues - as a whole the party has another agenda. Thus the false indignation.

Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist for being a lesbian ---- not worthy of comment.

Mary Cheney deserves the same rights other Americans enjoy and provided via the Constitution ----- I'm a pretty angry father. I'm a very indignant mother!

It's all a distraction.


:roll:

[Trigger]

spin-spin-spin
C'mon, we'll get this thing off the ground yet!

The simple fact is Kerry/Edwards dragged Mary Cheney into the debate and tried to play it off as if they were supportive of her. It was backhanded, it shouldn't have happened and it was done for the sole purpose of snickering about the lesbian daughter of a conservative.


Yea I remember when they burst out laughing during the debates...oh wait..

I just don't get why get why Republicans suddenly found a gay peson they give a **** about. When did conservatives start defending gay people? Oh I know, when they thought they could get a vote or two out of it.
Clueless post of the day.

[Hot Lips]

spin-spin-spin
C'mon, we'll get this thing off the ground yet!

The simple fact is Kerry/Edwards dragged Mary Cheney into the debate and tried to play it off as if they were supportive of her. It was backhanded, it shouldn't have happened and it was done for the sole purpose of snickering about the lesbian daughter of a conservative.


Yea I remember when they burst out laughing during the debates...oh wait..

I just don't get why get why Republicans suddenly found a gay peson they give a **** about. When did conservatives start defending gay people? Oh I know, when they thought they could get a vote or two out of it.
Clueless post of the day.

Most delusional post of the day.

[Trigger]

His or yours? p-)

[Hot Lips]

His or yours? p-)


Ummmmm what was the question again? *snicker*

*smooch*