"The only thing offensive about Kerry's statement to us gay people was that he had to pause mid-sentence and gulp and sputter the terrifying word out: 'Dick Cheney's daughter, who is ... a lesbian ...' "

That's what I found offensive too, and that's why the GOP has reason to believe that, although couched in terms of tolerance and equality, the underlying point of an whole comment was to pander to the bigots -- a reminder that the man one heartbeat away has a gay daughter. Oooh.

Nothing Kerry says has a single, comprehensible meaning. He's not a flip-flopper; flip-flopping requires stating one coherent position from which to flip . . . or flop.

The right didn't react, and Mary's parents didn't react, to the fact that he said she was lesbian. What they reacted to was the fact that he tried to use her sexual preference to sabotage Bush's chances with the less then fair minded voters who do notlike gays. In this regard it was a dirty trick to use Mary's sexual preferce and for Mrs. Edwards to act later as if Mrs. Cheney was somehow ashamed of her daugher because she was pissed at the blatant attack on her Daughter is truely Reprehensible. Who asked them to bring up Mary's sex preferences? No one, least of all Mary.

Since I blasted the post on the voter fraud stuff, I'll give props here where they're due.

Stephen's right on this; let me site Sullivan in agreement on this and in exposing the hypocrisy of critizing Kerry for driving a wedge between Bush and anti-gay vote.

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_10_dish_archive.html#109781478699973184
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_10_dish_archive.html#109779826755612144

I'll link both here. I tend to value Sullivan on this one for obvious reasons. :)

Let us examine what was actually SAID:

Moderator: Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? [...]

Kerry: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think 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.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

Let me offer the suggestion that instead of being a political ploy or latent homophobia, Mary Chaney was mentioned precisely because she was a prime example which addressed the question.

If the daughter of a hard right-winger is a lesbian, just maybe it's because she didn't have a choice; it's how she is, how she was born. Maybe that's the way it is with the vast majority of gays - it's how they were born rather than a choice.

And maybe the people making a song and dance about Kerry suggesting a out and public lesbian was born like that are exposing their own homophobia. Either that or they're simply political whores.

You're right. Kerry and Edwards both just happened to use the same example for their answer to questions about gay marriage. This was a calculated move.

Like the author said, the pause before "lesbian" was funny. If Kerry had said in a question related to interracial marriage that Cheney's daughter was married to a "... black man." It reflects poorly on the speaker.

God forbid that politicians on the right be political and use Kerry's words against him. They must be racist, er homophoic. Or political whores.

If the remarks were innocent and used to merely illustrate a point, why did Kerry's campaign chief say that this was "fair game"? What game, pray tell?

This was a despicable attempt to score points by discussing the opponent's family. I could care less about the particulars of the discussion - and the fact that both Kerry and Edwards mentioned it makes it clear that there is a political calculation at work.

What a scumbag.

Like the author said, the pause before "lesbian" was funny.

Uh-huh. So you support George "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again" Bush because you think Kerry's pause is "funny"?

What exactly is the thesis here? Kerry/Edwards are attempting to court the homophobic vote with coded innuendo?Do you realise how stupid that idea is?

"Oh, well, I hate fags, so I guess I'll vote Democrat, since Kerry paused in the middle of defending homosexuality."

Idiots.

I said this on Roger Simon's blog and I'll say it here. Kerry had trouble with his lines because he felt guilty about what he was doing. He knew it was sleazy. He is like Macbeth. Most of his campaign has been based on lies and he knows it. He's not a sociopath, so he's haunted.

Edwards, on the other hand, has no guilt. Guile, yes, Guilt, no.

"What exactly is the thesis here? Kerry/Edwards are attempting to court the homophobic vote with coded innuendo? Do you realise how stupid that idea is?"

I didn't offer a thesis explaining why Kerry did what he did. I agree that it is a stupid idea, but i also think it was a stupid thing to say regarldess of the reason.

I'm merely suggesting that brushing off Kerry's comments as "a prime example which addressed the question" is fatuous.

Your friend is flat out wrong.

They gasped because using someone's daughter in this way (imagine that Bush had used Kerry's daughters to discuss the trauma of divorce), in order to target her parents, is despicable.

"What exactly is the thesis here? Kerry/Edwards are attempting to court the homophobic vote with coded innuendo?Do you realise how stupid that idea is?"

Kerry had no intention of courting the homophobic vote he was reminding religious Bush supporters that Mary Cheney was a lesbian in order to stop as many of them from voting for the President as possible. He was hopefully playing on some of their prejudices and was 'using' Mary Cheney to do it. Kerry knows very well that they would never vote for him he just doesn't want them to vote for Bush either. Kerry is not stupid he's just an asshole; every conceivable cell of him.

Phoenician in a time of Romans I'd go back to sailing and leave politics alone it isn't your strong point.

I will play the idiot and ask a "stupid" question:

What if Mary Cheney were lying about being a lesbian?

I mean, how do you positively, absolutely know these things about other people?

Sounds dumb maybe... but when Ann Heche first "came out", dated Ellen DeGeneres, then dumped her and started being "straight" again, I wondered: Can you truly know other people? Or are these "identity" issues so personal and unverifiable as to be impossible to define as "public"?

You're all familiar with the type of obnoxious character who keeps calling everyone else "gay" (or more derogatory synonyms) -- and is so obsessive about it, you suspect he is "repressed" about some personal issue.

But what really annoys you about this type of individual is his arrogance: he claims that he knows you -- more intimately than it's possible to know anyone, for he alone can look straight into people's souls -- and he assumes this gives him some phony authority.

That's what's stupid about John Kerry saying that Dick Cheney's daughter is gay: not that it may or may not be true, but that Kerry claims he can know it. No one can.

That is why a person's sexual identity shouldn't be used in political debates: it smacks of make-believe.

But then again, maybe I'm just stupid and everybody else is smart...

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Brian Erst's email to instapundit said it well: What would people's response be to Bush and Cheney using Kerry's daughters in a response to a question about divorce?

Not just used them because it flowed, but forced things just so they could mention the kids and how Kerry's divorce and annulment had affected them?

We'll never know, because Bush and Cheney, unlike Kerry and Edwards, have class, and are decent human beings.

John Kerry doesn't know Mary Cheney. He does know Barney Franks. If he wanted to speak about someone, he could have used someone he knows. Instead he and Edwards decided to drag Mary Cheney in.

Why?

Because they're gay-baiting sleazebags who will do anything to win this election, no matter what teh cost to America. So they cheapen our discourse, encourage bigotry, and (as the Vodka man noted yesterday) they assault the foundations of our democracy.

If they're willing to cause that much harm to America to get power, how much harm do you think they'll cause using it, and fighting to keep it?

Do America a favor, and vote for Bush, so we don't have to find out.

I've heard a number of people defend it by saying she's part of the campaign but I don't agree with it. My wife's from a political family and politicians do drag the loving, supportive, diverse family out as campaign props but they drag their own out. One of the drawbacks in that is it puts the family in the public eye and a lot of the family members don't want to be there and there is a feeling of being exploited. While Mary Cheney is part of the campaign she's not a candidate or spokesperson and not in that sense a public person. To me worse than it being homophobic or exploitive in that sense it shows that Kerry doesn't know where politics ends and family life begins and that's pretty screwed up.

who the hell is kerry to pompously assume he 'speaks' for mary cheney?

Using a family member of your opponent to depress his turnout on election day is dispicable.

The fact that both Kerry and Edwards brought it up on national TV in front of 50 million people and never mention it when they're on the stump suggests strongly that it was indeed used for political purposes.

Put the shoe on the other foot and what would have been the reaction?

If Bush had made a similar comment the media and gay activists would have killed him.
They would have said he was gay "baiting".

This was clearly calculated by Edwards and Kerry to inject a little doubt into marginal supporters of Bush who react negatively to the fact that Cheney's daughter is gay. It is a sad fact that some voters might be swayed by this but I don't doubt it is a true.

However, the fact is that Kerry is obviously not ashamed of using any kind of tactic, no matter how despicable, to achieve his goal. This should speak volumes about his character but, then again, if you followed his career and still don't understand his clearly opportunistic approach to every issue you probably don't get the point by now anyway.

Kerry and Edwards both used Mary Cheney to get votes, and to block votes for Bush. They are devoted to winning, period, and that is what they do.

What burns me about it is how the Democrats in particular use gays as yet another captive voting bloc, never to be treated as individuals, just another peon on the plantation. It's a reflex for them, just as the Human Rights Campaign assumes we only vote on their pet issues, and have no larger sense of life outside the bubble.

It was always tacky to bring your opponent's family members into a political debate, even as examples, and really uncalled for. Both side's reactions show their biases: (R) Ohh, icky, he said "lesbian", and (D) she's a lesbian, that means she's our property and we can do anything we want since we have her best interests in our hearts...

Jim Geraghty has the transcripts and I think proves the point that Kedwards' use of her was gaybaiting. Or we could listen to the impartial Andrew Sullivan.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410142134.asp

He/She may well not read my post, how dimwitted can Phoenician in a time of Romans be?

"Oh, well, I hate fags, so I guess I'll vote Democrat, since Kerry paused in the middle of defending homosexuality."

The disgutting mention of Cheney's daughter was not to convince "bigots" to vote for him, but to keep "them" from voting at all.

To get my 2c's in, it shows how hollow Kerry/Edwards are to buy into the false notion that Republicans are by their very nature bigoted, Geez. It aint that simple.

And I though Christopher Reeve was going to be this election's Kitty Dukakis. Looks like Mary Cheney gets to play the innocent victim this time around.

Kerry managed to finally unite the country...he made just about everyone in the country hate his guts with one sentence. Gays and the oh-so-tolerant liberals don't appreciate Kerry's connotation (and John Edwards' idiot wife's statement) that it's something to be ashamed of, and conservatives don't appreciate the exploitation of a private family issue.

Is the Democratic base going to be comfortable voting for a couple of gay-baiters? Independents sure aren't.

Facts:

1. Mary Cheney is an out and proud lesbian.
2. Her parents have both mentioned this fact publicly.
3. The small town, southern/midwestern base of the Republican Party is virulently anti-gay and homophobic.
4. The Republican Party is actively working at both the state and National level to deny gays not only marriage rights, but also civil unions, domestic partnerships... even the right to execute any sort of legal contract with each other.
5. George Bush and Dick Cheney have done a grand total of Zero to discourage the effort described in (4).
6. Mentioning that a public fact is, indeed, a public fact is no different than mentioning that someone's child is in the military.
7. Those who state otherwise believe that homosexuality is something to be embarrassed about.

I'm coming at this from a generational and non-issue view.

Was Nixon's bro brought up during debates? Billy Carter wasn't - (Billy Beer), the Dems could have used Neil Bush very effectively, and the Right Roger Clinton as a posterboy. Not to mention mining the Gore children to make points.

But it wasn't done. Much like I don't remember other previous pres' openly disagreeing, much less sending letters to the UN. Eisenhower didn't tke JKF to task publically, did he?

Edwards brought her up, now Kerry.

Just keep lowering the bar.

If this kind of stuff is going to continue happening, who is going to want to run?

It wasn't done. Contrary to the 60s boomers best attempts, there are still some standards. Do not complain about the sub-level of discourse in this country.

You are looking at the subset, not the larger picture.

Unless something nice was said about the family, family was off-limits. Kedwards use was not nice, no matter how they couched it and you know it. If this becomes accepted public standard, don't be surprised when it filters down to we great unwashed masses.

Jim -

Complete bullshit.

Lie -

The small town, southern/midwestern base of the Republican Party is virulently anti-gay and homophobic.

You don't know what people feel - you're just expressing your own prejudices. Believe it or not you
can disagree with someone without hating them.

'Mentioning that a public fact is, indeed, a public fact is no different than mentioning that someone's child is in the military.'

Obviously it's none of Kerry's business to discuss a rival's child for any reason whether they be in the military or work in a factory or anything else.It has nothing to do with issues, parties or anything else. It's inexcusable but what it does show is that in Kerry's view of the world no one is worthy of any respect.

'Those who state otherwise believe that homosexuality is something to be embarrassed about.'

See above - maybe you have some special gift of mind reading but you're just stating your own stupid prejudices.

I don't pretend to know why Kerry (and Edwards) mentioned Mary Cheney during the debates. It could have been a subtle swipe at the loyalty of the Bush base, or it could just have been a condescendingly "gracious" comment (only self-important nitwits with a tin ear make those, by the way). So neither of those two theories looks particularly good for Kerry and Edwards.

However, I do know that it has always been an unwritten rule that you leave the other guy's family out of it, unless he specifically brings them in. A hard and fast rule. No gray area. Because if you don't make it a hard and fast rule, there are no rules, and someday some unhappy kid who doesn't deserve it is going to really get hurt. Mary Cheney is an adult, but she isn't a campaign prop. When the subject came up a while ago and Dick Cheney was expressing some disagreement with the President's position, he didn't bring her into it even then.

So the problem isn't really that she was cited as an example of lesbianism, it's that she was brought up at all for any reason. Breaking rules like that just because you want to seems to be the modus operandi of John Kerry (remember his campaign actions during and immediately after the Republican convention? Another "rule" trashed for expediency).

This "rules are for the little people" attitude, along with his known DYKWIA behavior (and his 12.8% Federal tax rate) puts him right up there with Leona Helmsley in my book. And that's not a good thing.

Frankly I get REALLY damn tired of hearing people defend Dick and Lynne Cheney because their daughter is being used as a political tool. Might I remind you that her daughter is an out lesbian whose job with Coors was based on her sexual orientation. Might I remind you that the Bush/Cheney administration used my sexuality as a political tool this election year and Kerry, Edwards, me, you and every damned person in this country has EVERY DAMNED RIGHT to point out that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. And if that causes a few bible beating idiots to not vote for Bush, so be it. The fact is I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for the Cheneys or pity for the fact they support a President who uses their daughter's sexuality as a political tool to fire up those same bible beating idiots.

Well...back to the original question of homosexuality being a choice...I didn't choose to struggle with it but I did choose to steward my life away from it.

With regard to Kerry, I think he could have said the exact same thing without the specific example. His exploitation of Mary was calculated and an attempt to hit the President at a perceived vulnerability. That is a judgment made by the democrats...not a reality in the Bush administration.

The truth is no one is afraid of homosexuality in the Republican leadership. They just have differences of opinions and can still be united in the overall purposes of leading the country.

Just because you don't tow the pc line on homosexuality doesn't make you a bigot or homophobe even though it is obvious Kerry was trying to exploit that.

I have an idea: how about we win World War IV first and then worry about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? Doesn't every family have a lesbian in the attic, so to speak? For goodness sakes, ho friggin' cares?

'Might I remind you that her daughter is an out lesbian whose job with Coors was based on her sexual orientation. '

Which has to do with what?

'The fact is I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for the Cheneys or pity for the fact they support a President who uses their daughter's sexuality as a political tool to fire up those same bible beating idiots. '

I'm sure you don't and that's your right but I have personal experience with what HT describes as the unwritten rule that you just don't bring rivals family members into it. On Roger Simon's blog someone named Julie expresses it much better than I can but it's just an inexcusable breech of courtesy to bring a rivals family member into the mud but it is so perfectly emblamatic of Kerry's and Edwards view of everyone else in the world that no rules or standards apply to them.

"bible beating idiots"
Real nice Britton. BTW, how are you guys doin' with a country full of mosque dwelling would be killers?

So "gay person" Dave Cullen is saying that being homosexual is like being a paraplegic or blind? Interesting. I have found this to be the overriding attitude toward homosexuals from people of all political persuasions, even "bible beating idiots". It is seen as an affliction by and large, but you rarely seen the view expressed, especially by homosexuals.

We don't shun or scorn those with affliction, we treat them with love and understanding. Though perhaps not with enthusiastic acceptance and approval.

A great many people objecting to the objections seem to have missed the point.

The subject (Mary C's lesbianism) is not the point. The point is that the candidate's family is supposed to be immune from targeting by the opponent.

It's about yet another line of civility crossed by Libs/Dems.

They are supposed to be immune? According to who? The conservatives certainly don't mind criticizing and even legislating against the choices other families make, so why is their family immune.

The fact is Kerry did not say anything negative towards Mary Cheney. So what you are doing is assuming his motive for even bringing her up was political or negative. Therefore at best you can say it was in poor taste. That's an opinion. Unwritten rules aren't rules. Period. The American people will judge whether Kerry was out of line. Personally I am HAPPY AS HELL he's calling the Bush Administration out to the mat on the notion that if they are going to proactively seek to discriminate and legislate against gays in this country, then they don't deserve to have their own families protected from criticism. As far as I'm concerned the gloves came off on leaving Mary Cheney out of this discussion when her father and her father's boss took a proactive stand on making her a second class citizen by preventing her from receiving equal protection under the law. Calling them out for their hypocrisy is long overdue. Their mission isn't to protect traditional marriage, whatever they think is traditional about it is beyond me, but to prevent gay couples from protections provided by the law.

Sullivan actually blows the Dems goat pretty thoroughly on this issue, and he does it with his own prejudice.

How? He calls Bush base "anti-gay".

Really? If that were true, then Bush just lost this election with his debate answer on homosexuality. He spoke to tolerance an understanding, saying that personal preferences and prectices were no ones business. He just alienated his entire base, according to Sullivan. He should be down 20 points.

The only reason for Kerry and Edwards to bring up Mary Cheney is the belief that the conservative base is anti-gay. It was a programmed talking point, as Kerry practically choked on the word "lesbian" and the whole statement rang false and disingenuous. He would never make that statement naturally.

This is bigotry plain and simple. Kerry, Edwards, and liberals think conservatives are anti-gay and are seeking to exploit it. Sullivan blows his own attempt to play it off and further exposes the whole sham. And it's obviously false since if it were true, Bush just kissed his whole base goodbye during the debate.

The Democratic ticket is getting more disgusting, bizzare, and insulting by the day.

Well I for one think it is true. And I also think Bush's base aren't one issue voters so even if they dont' like his response, they aren't going to pull their support from him. Anymore than I'm going to pull my support for Kerry because he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. At least supports civil unions that provide those benefits Bush's proposed legislation would not allow. I'm not more a one issue voter than the conservatives.

As for Kerry's apparent uncomfortable attitude with saying lesbian...if he hesitated it might be because he worried what he was saying would be spun by the right as an attack on Cheney's daughter when it was no such thing. John Kerry has never had an issue with saying the word gay or lesbian or talking to gay groups, and listening to the community. Bush is the man who for four years has mentioned the word gay once, nearly 3 years into his administration. He has made no good faith effort to care or listen to the gay community. He has painted the judgements of the Supreme Court of MA as an "attack" against traditional marriage, which equates to him saying the homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage somehow. John Kerry isn't the one who has an issue with speaking about homosexuality. Bush is. And if Kerry was uncomfortable, it was because he knew that the right isn't mature enough to have a discussion about homosexuality without feeling threatened about their view of it.

Britton -

I'm glad you feel that it's OK to exploit an opponents family in order to push your politics and I just hope that Kerry/Edwards will be equally open in explaining that they think gay baiting is acceptable and that they don't respect Cheney's family or anyone elses. I'd be HAPPY AS HELL to see them come out and just say it instead of trying to lie about it.

The liberals on this board should open their eyes on this.
First Mr. Elite Arrogant Kerry does not know Mary Cheney (notice he did not use her first name--heavens the stupid people might not "get" that she is Dick Cheneys daughter) He does not know what she thinks, he only knows how he thinks she should feel. Are we all going to have to "feel" how JK thinks we should? Straight children of candidates are not singled out for inclusion in a Presidential debate on the basis of their sexual orientation and neither should gay children be.

This thing has James Carville written all over it. Who else could get Republicans to make the gay daughter of the Vice President the main topic this close to the election.

You gotta hand it to him, we all took the bait. This is a win-win for the Dems, and he knew it. If Cheney says nothing, he's ashamed, if he speaks out he's ashamed. Sean Hannity is going crazy and looking like a complete homophobe. Andrew Sullivan is eating it up too.

Republicans need to let this thing die. If for no other reason than to to take away Carville's oportunity to laugh his ass off.

"As for Kerry's apparent uncomfortable attitude with saying lesbian...if he hesitated it might be because he worried what he was saying would be spun by the right as an attack on Cheney's daughter when it was no such thing."

Really? That's interesting. then why wouldn't Kerry speak about someone like Jim McGreevy, or someone he knows personally? Or (God forbid) just talk about his own opinions?

He spoke about Mary Cheney because it was a calculated plant. One he looked uncomfortable talking about and stumbled over. A talking point that some Democratic strategist thought would somehow score Kerry points.

But I'm sure John "The Great Debater" Kerry appreciates your efforts to explain his positions after the fact. Too bad he can't do it himself.

Yes, it was a political move, but that does not make it wrong. She is not a child of the VP. She is an active employee of the campaign. And an openly gay woman. JK doesn't need to ask her because he believes that it isn't a choice anymore than it's a choice that he is sexually attracted to women. I don't have to ask a straight person if they think their sexuality is a choice when I know its not.

As for bethl's comment about straight childrens' sexuality not being a topic...that's because heterosexuality wasn't a question. Homosexuality was and has been a hot issue in this campaign.

One of the best arguments I have read was posted on another blog by someone, who I hope doesn't mind me pasting his response here.

"Mary Cheney is not an innocent bystander. She has long participated
in the Republican Party in more than a passive role.

The Republican leadership made a calculated and cynical decision to
start to expel gay and lesbian participation in the GOP. It's just
numbers. In 2000, 1 million Gay and Lesbian Americans voted for Bush.
But 4 million Christian Evangelicals stayed home. The GOP thinks it
doesn't need our vote. And in fact it thinks that we prevent them from
getting Evangelical votes. This was a planned, strategic maneuver.

The story of the Austin 12 illustrates this:

_____________________________________
SF Chronicle:

"Energized by the success of the Austin 12, Francis formed the
Republican Unity Coalition, a "gay-straight alliance" with GOP stars:
Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter; GOP
operative Mary Matalin, then working for the vice president; former
Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming; and former President Gerald Ford.

The group held party-sanctioned events at the 2000 convention and
issued a "Cody Statement" declaring that traditional Republican
principles of freedom and family should apply without regard to sexual
orientation, which it sought to make a "nonissue in the Republican
Party".

This lasted until 2003, when the following occurred

That April, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., warned that if the court
overturned sodomy laws, legalized polygamy, incest and other acts
would be next, an assertion that outraged gays.

A few weeks later, Matalin suddenly did an about-face and defended
Santorum on national television, declaring that Catholicism teaches
one to "love and accept the individual, but you cannot accept the
act."

Matalin went on to accuse gays of "raising the tolerance bar" by
criticizing Santorum, going so far as to compare that to calling the
pope a bigot.

Without explanation, Mary Cheney suddenly resigned from the unity group".
_______________________________

Mary Cheney's participation in politics in a leadership role has
removed her "immunity" from being discussed. And even prior to last
nights debate, she was discussed a great deal by various news sources
who commented that she was missing from Cheney's family line-up at the
GOP convention. It was commented on again when she did show up, with
her partner, on the stage with Dick Cheney at the end of the VP
debates. No one said it was inappropriate to bring her up at the time.
These were calculated decisions made by the GOP leadership. And you
had better believe that Gay and Lesbian Americans were watching these
events unfold like a hawk. Mary Cheney is part of the Bush campaign.
Anyone in the Bush Campaign is subject to criticism both by other
candidates or the American public.

It comes down to the fact that the President of the United States
wants to discriminate against his own VP's daughter in the
Constitution itself. Both candidates quite openly use their family
status as a campaign tool by parading their families on stage and
having them speak at rallies. And the notion of family status is
fundamental to the marriage question because that's what a marriage
is, the formation of a family. Bush and Kerry both say we can't have
one. But only Bush wants to put it in the Constitution.
I just don't see how Mary can be untouchable in this.

If she had never taken a step on stage or participated in the GOP in a
leadership role, I would feel differently."

If Kerry had made the point with, say, Rosie O'Donnell or Ellen Degeneres, that's one thing. They are very publicly "out" and well known. To deliberately target the daughter of your opponents running mate when there are other more well known targets of opportunity, well, that just seems low and crass.

And then Mrs. Edwards, the other lawyer, has to add insult to injury and project, er, practice psychology without a shingle.

Uh huh. And I suppose if they'd said Mary Chaney was a Trekkie or a dominatrix or whatever*, it'd be okay?

The problem is that Kerry and Edwards et al tried to use someone's family to make cheap shots. Probably knew their loyal followers would try the "are you ASHAMED" ploy as a "defense" of their actions.

*=You really don't want me to make up a list of subjects.

I'm sure you don't and that's your right but I have personal experience with what HT describes as the unwritten rule that you just don't bring rivals family members into it.... it's just an inexcusable breech of courtesy to bring a rivals family member into the mud but it is so perfectly emblamatic of Kerry's and Edwards view of everyone else in the world that no rules or standards apply to them.

Yeah. I'm just so glad there's than unwritten rule, and that it's just Kerry/Edwards who violated it. Wait...wait a minute.....

"Nuts… A drug addict." (Newt Gingrich on Kitty Dukakis) [And don't fotget all of the made-up "Kitty Dukakis flag-burning" crap, or "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"]

"Hillary Clinton in an apron is like Michael Dukakis in a tank."(Roger Ailes during the 1992 campaign) [I'm sure everyone remembers other quotes about Hillary long before she ran for the Senate]

"On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time...."

Frankly, I'm no Kerry fan, but this issue seems like a lot of people who already dislike Kerry trying to find something to pin on him.

The stuff above? That's full-throttle sliming the opponent's family. Kerry/Edward's stuff seemed to me more like someone trying to highlight a disparity they seen between the opposition ticket's public advocacy and private lives. The whole divorce anaology only fits if Kerry/Edwards was running as the anti-divorce candidate.

Mary Cheney's sexuality is public knowledge and NOT just because her father mentioned it. She used to work for Coors Brewing as a gay liasion to push gay bars into carrying their products when they had pulled them because the Coors family is full of homophobic bigots. She's used her sexuality to make money, it isn't something private. And to say it is unmentionable only perpetuates the idea that it is something that is wrong. If you think it was meant to have a negative impact its because you recognize that it can. Frankly, as a homosexual, I have little patience for a lesbian who would work to elect a man who has pushed legislation that would prevent her from equal protection under the law because she happens to be in love with a woman. Her father should feel the same way. I think its just and fair to point that out to the American people and remind them about the hypocrisy behind the policies towards gays that Bush supports. He seemed disinterested and uninformed in that debate on Wednesday and frankly he has no excuse for it since he has an open lesbian working on his campaign.

Oh and to Mike M who said earlier that gays did not appreciate Kerry's comments on Mary Cheney. Every single gay person I know has applauded it because we are tired of people like Mary Cheney who have used their sexual orientation for profit but are willing to subvert that orientation to men like George Bush and her father to get them elected. Her parents might not be ashamed at her, but they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a man like Bush to discriminate against his daughter.

I am livid over the last week+ from the K/E campaign. Mostly over Mary Cheney and also over the "stand up and walk" claim of Edwards on stem cell research.

We've been having a lively back and forth on it at Winds of Change. I'm just pissed that ANY person (who isn't running for office and hasn't personally made her own sexuality an issue) should be an object for cynical exploitation.

And you know, I don't care who does it or for whatever "Cause". It's just wrong to treat people that way. It's a matter of common decency. And Britton, I have gay and lesbian friends who aren't happy at all about the way she has been used this last week.

Oh, puleez. "Unwritten rules" and "tradition" are the backbone of civil society.

Ms. Cheney's sexual preference neither provides special protection for her nor signifies open season on her. It's simply not the instant issue.

The issue is that whether Kerry had been speaking about enlistment rates, economic downturn or the man in the moon... the opponent's family is off limits. Iraq is a hot issue also, perhaps even more so than gay marriage, and if Ms. Cheney were enlisted in the USMC, it would have been wrong for Kerry to bring her up. Pure and simple. Because it goes beyond the bounds of established expectations decency.

For someone who contiually touts his diplomatic prowess, he certainly has a way of being the most un-diplomatic, crass individual I've seen in a great while.

Besides, Kerry, in choosing to cross that line on THIS issue and no other, shows HE is the one who feels Ms. Cheney's sexuality is something sinisterly significant, so much so that he was willing to risk backlash in doing so.

The disgutting mention of Cheney's daughter was not to convince "bigots" to vote for him, but to keep "them" from voting at all.

Except for the teeny tiny little fact that Mary Chaney is about as closeted as Ru Paul. Anybody who would not vote for Bush because his running-mate's daughter prefers the better smelling gender would already not be voting for him.

Man, this is a stupid argument. It's like someone referring to Martin Luther King as a distinguished African-American and a bunch of KKK members screaming about dragging race into politics.

Unless something nice was said about the family, family was off-limits. Kedwards use was not nice, no matter how they couched it and you know it.

Pardon me, they said she was a lesbian.

That's only "not nice" if you think there's something wrong with it. I don't, Mary Chaney doesn't, and as far as I can tell Kerry and Edwards don't either.

So the only person who has a problem here is, um, you...

Jeremy in NYC
[After a bunch of irrelevanciess attacking politicians'spouses. Spouses, who choose to marry and remain married to the politician, are different from children, who have no choice in the matter.]
says:

"On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time...."

So, Kerry is behaving about as well as Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks for making my point for me.

Ralph:

(a) the argument (not mine) was "you just don't bring rivals family members into it." Not "Children." "Family members."

(b) Read all the way through my comment. I said why I don't think this is the same, and until you refute that, "thanks for making my argument for me" doesn't do it.

Rush is the third biggest a$$h0!3 on the modern right, after Ann Coulter and Alan Keyes. (Pat Buchanan is a leftover from a previous era). Gingritch is number five or so. Fox's Ailes is the closest to a "mainstream" Republican in your list.

If these are the best comparisons you can come up with, then the Democrats' *presidential nominee* is behaving as crassly as the rudest Republiicans on their rudest day.

That's pretty bad.

(1) The question was whether or not there's an unwritten rule that family members are out of bounds (I claim that de facto, even if not "de jure" [or as "de jure" as you can get for this sort of thing] they haven't been.

That's the second diversion you've thrown up. [Wives aren't children, despite nobody saying "children"! Gingrinch, Limbaugh and Ailes (who, uh, wasn't with Fox at the time) aren't that important!] Either address the issue, or give it up.

(2) For the third time, I don't think what Kerry said was comparable to what the assholes above said. Again: goooooo baaaaack and read the original comment. Slowly, if that will help with your comprehension.

"The question was whether or not there's an unwritten rule that family members are out of bounds "

Out of bounds to whom? I was taking it as "out of bounds to the opponent." Obviously random bystanders are going to say all sorts of things.

First, find me an example of a *candidate* draggin his opponent's family in.

Second, if you find that the rule has been violated four or five times in the last decade by some of the biggest churls in American politics, then I'd say it is still in general a rule, and anyone who breaks it is as big a jerk as Limbaugh, Gingrich, or Keyes. And if any of them were running for President I'd probably be forced to vote Democrat.

BTW, on your comment:
"Ailes (who, uh, wasn't with Fox at the time) "
RNC chairman then, FOX head now, either way he's clearly an important part of the Republican machine, and I was grantinng you that point.