Kerry Really Stepped In It

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
The statement Kerry made last night about Mary Cheney is blowing up everywhere I've turned today on broadcast, cable, internet and talk radio. The talking heads are having a field day with this. Forget the spin about Kerry winning the debate, his remarks and the people talking about him are overshadowing it.

I think the whole tactic has backfired tremendously and is showing the left as bigots. Bigots? The left? Obviously the statement about Mary Cheney was meant to embarass President Bush and VP Cheney on the issue of gay marriage. Unfortunately Bush and Cheney are seperated on the issue in a public way. In addition to that this was the second time Mary Cheney was brought up in debates, the first by the Presidential half of the ticket.

The purpose?

Obviously someone or some piece of research in Kerry's campaign believes that if the nation knew Mary Cheney was a lesbian the Republican base would abandon the ticket. Problem is, everyone has known, everyone knew at the 2000 convention. People have known that the Cheney's have accepted Mary's partner into their family.

Conclustion? Democrats, blind with rage that they're still not comfortably ahead, determine that all Republicans are ignorant, redneck hicks with gunracks on the back of their pickup trucks and a dead deer draining on the bedliner, driving home at 80 MPH tossing empty Buds out on the interstate and will be completely SHOCKED at this news. Guess what, there is no outrage on the right, except that Kerry stooped so low.

Of all the gay people in life why pick on one that hasn't made her persona, face, voice or comments very public in a very public year? How many more gay people in public life could have been used as illustrations that people could relate with? Rosie O' Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Barney Frank or hell this years criminal messiah Jim McGreevey would have been appropriate. Answer: John Kerry wanted the "bigotry" of the right to eat up the Bush/Cheney ticket.

Unfortunately not one caller on the War Room (Regional network broadcast.), Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh has expressed any outrage over Mary Cheney being a lesbian. There have been no angry posts on Free Republic over this "outing". To the contrary, every piece of commentary, phone call and monologue has summarily declared "We know, we knew, we didn't care, we all know gay people and Kerry was a bigot for bringing up this cheap personal political attack."

Of course all of you Kool Aid drinkers will rally around the "Bush and Cheney are hypocrites if what you say is true PAD." but as usual, you'll all be wrong. Shock of shock people on the right know and love gay people. We wouldn't wish them harm and live with full knowledge of their lives. Just because we're drawing a line in the sand and saying no to gay marriage doesn't mean we're full of hate.

Then again the party of the purple tin tub only knows the sterotypes they've concocted for the last 20 years about their opponents. Unfortunately that sterotype is as dated as bucked tooth Asians doing nothing but laundry for a living, illiterate incomprehensible watermellon and fried chicken eating black people, hooked nose Jewish money lenders and Mexicans that sleep all day instead of work. Unfortunately for Democrats the rest of the sterotypes have been shamed into history and the reality of this sterotype has yet to smack them in the face.

Don't worry though it will. It will be confirmed during the early morning hours of November 3rd when the red states carry the headlines. Democrats will then spend the next two months before inaguration wondering why they lost. It's because you're bigots stupid!
 
I don't think Kerry should have brought it up but I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. I don't think it will hurt him as badly as some say for the simple fact that most of the Democratic supporters aren't voting for Kerry, they are voting against Bush. You could put Gary Coleman up there on the Democratic platform and it wouldn't matter. I think Gore would have been MUCH better than Kerry but for some reason Gore didn't pursue it. At least Gore had the experience of being VP and being in the close race in 2000. You would think the Democratic party would have begged him to re-run so he could "re-defeat Bush".
 
Why is this an issue any way? Why should anyone be embarrassed over this? Republicans treat it as if it's a "family problem".
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I don't think Kerry should have brought it up but I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. I don't think it will hurt him as badly as some say for the simple fact that most of the Democratic supporters aren't voting for Kerry, they are voting against Bush. You could put Gary Coleman up there on the Democratic platform and it wouldn't matter. I think Gore would have been MUCH better than Kerry but for some reason Gore didn't pursue it. At least Gore had the experience of being VP and being in the close race in 2000. You would think the Democratic party would have begged him to re-run so he could "re-defeat Bush".[/quote]

Exactly.
 
You know what else is interesting?

Cheney spoke publicly about his daughter being gay at a Town Hall meeting a couple months ago in Davenport, Iowa:

Waterford, Mich. -- Vice President Dick Cheney spelled out Tuesday his differences with President Bush on the volatile issue of gay marriage, while for the first time discussing the sexual orientation of his gay daughter in a public setting.

Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney replied: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGHQ8DV6Q1.DTL
 
I guess since I'm just voting for "Anybody But Bush" I really lucked out that Kerry is smarter, more trustworthy, more diplomatic, and all-around better on both foreign and domestic issues than Dubya.
 
So Kerry upset Cheney's wife. Big deal. If that is all the Republicans can complain about from the last debate then Kerry did an excellent job. There are at least two Bush blunders that have blown up in his face. 1. The statement that he never said he isn't worried about Osama bin Laden. He actually did say this on an aired interview. 2. His statement about importing flu vaccine from Canada to deal with the shortage. According to the last debate, however, Bush claimed it isn't safe to import drugs from Canada. Can we say flip-flop!
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I guess since I'm just voting for "Anybody But Bush" I really lucked out that Kerry is smarter, more trustworthy, more diplomatic, and all-around better on both foreign and domestic issues than Dubya.[/quote]

Hey, everyone was on the Dean bandwagon then jumped off when he made an ass of himself. Even Rob Reiner was saying how great he was. Dean this, Dean that. Everyone saw him as the man to take Bush down, not Kerry. Kerry was but a blip on the radar. He became Dem nominee for these reasons...

Edwards was too green.
Liebermann was too Jewish. (He was the most intelligent of the bunch, he deserved the nomination more than the others. His religion should have been a non-factor.)
Dean was too stupid.
Gephardt was too old.

Other than on the Stem Cell issue which I DO agree with Kerry on (why Bush won't change on this is beyond me), everything else is debatable at best. A smart man would NEVER try to please everyone at the same time because that is impossible and that is what Kerry is trying to do.

LOL, if Kerry gets elected I show him the same respect some of you guys show "Dubya". I'll call him "Heinz 57" for the number positions he'll take on a issue.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Edwards was too green.
Liebermann was too Jewish. (He was the most intelligent of the bunch, he deserved the nomination more than the others. His religion should have been a non-factor.)
Dean was too stupid.
Gephardt was too old.
[/quote]

That's why there is a primary season - to whittle the contenders to one candidate. You can't not expect Democrats to rally around the nominee. That's what Republicans do. Or do you really think Bush was the best and brightest out of the GOP contenders four years ago? Over McCain?

Other than on the Stem Cell issue which I DO agree with Kerry on (why Bush won't change on this is beyond me), everything else is debatable at best.

You know why Bush won't go for more stem cells. That would upset his evangelical base who equate fetal stem cells with supporting abortion. Kerry isn't going to kiss up to the radical religious right.

LOL, if Kerry gets elected I show him the same respect some of you guys show "Dubya". I'll call him "Heinz 57" for the number positions he'll take on a issue.

Call him whatever you want. I'll call him Mr. President. :lol:
 
If Lynn Cheney was so upset with Kerry about mentioning that her daughter was a lesbian, which everyone already knew, then why didn't she scream at Alan Keyes when he said her daughter was practicing ""selfish hedonism"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/

This just goes again to the heart of the matter, Bush cannot run on issues, so repubs have to take things out of context in order to attack Kerry.

It wouldn't be a normal day if PAD didn't post some sort of nonsense like this.
 
You make a valid point Mr. Bad Example. I thought McCain and Bradley were better the last go around. IF Kerry is elected, I will give him the benefit of the doubt like I do every new President but considering his bombast, I would expect more out of him. He has set the platform that high for himself.

Bush CAN run on issues. If he couldn't he wouldn't been elected President and he would have been impeached by now. His positions on national security and taxes are his strong points. Kerry's strong points are Stem Cell and health care. An unbiased view can see these things. While I don't think Kerry is the best choice at least I TRY to see SOME good. I haven't seen many Democractic supporters be as candid in regards to the President other than perhaps the day of 9/11 when it was politically correct to show solidarity.
 
The only reason Bush HASN'T been impeached is because Republicans control Congress. Clinton was impeached for far less than Bush's actions.
 
Bush almost got half of the popular votes in the 2000 election. Not exactly a popular mandate but he has run his entire presidency like he was given one. After 9/11 he had the Democrats and the rest of the world rallying behind him. Rather than harness that once-in-a-lifetime moment for real bi-partisanship and global goodwill, Bush pissed it all away. The GOP started hammering through their legislation and Bush alienated many of our long-time allies. He had a golden opportunity to be a great president but he was too small-minded and partisan to seize it.

The only reason he hasn't been impeached by now for misleading us into a quagmire, is that the GOP controls all three braches of government.

The only thing I can totally agree with this administration on is the Do Not Call list. That was great. Everything else, not great. Even when it was something I agreed with, like going after Osama in Afghanistan, he pulled out most of the troops to invade Iraq. WTF?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']The only reason Bush HASN'T been impeached is because Republicans control Congress. Clinton was impeached for far less than Bush's actions.[/quote]

As Mr. Bad Example said...

"Spin! Spin, you magnificient *******! Spin as hard as you can! " (I'll leave the b-word out :) )
 
Why is mentioning Mary Cheney a bad thing? She's out. She's an adult. The only reason that mentioning her sexual orientation is "bad" is if you believe calling a lesbian a lesbian is an "attack." Did you actually hear the rest of his remarks? I thought they were quite respectful.

Then Lynne Cheney freaks out? The only reason calling a lesbian a lesbian is bad is if you're a bigot.

So it's expected, then, that the right should be so up in arms, then, no?

seppo
 
Wait a minute... The Republicans, who supported the "Defense of Marriage Amendment" as a wedge issue, is saying that Kerry is bigoted against gays?

This is the same RNC that refused to allow the Log Cabin Republicans to speak or have a formal meeting at their convention out of fear of angering the Christian Coalition?

This is absolutely hilarious.

ED: I have spelling issues. This is true.
 
They're trying to draw attention away from Bush's remarks (and then lies about NOT saying it) about not worrying about Bin Laden.
 
From gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan:

SOMETHING ABOUT MARY: I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good. It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It's an attack on all families with gay members - and on the family as an institution. That's a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush's record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.

www.andrewsullivan.com
 
It's not a matter of propriety or arguing with facts. The entire American politically aware population knows Mary Cheney is an out, adult child of the VP. That's not the issue, that's not why people are complaining. They aren't upset over the facts.

It's a matter of manners. There has been a long unwritten rule not to bring family into campaign issues. It was true of Reagan's adult children, it was true of Gore's adult children. No one brought up their opponents children in political stump speeches or debates. It's a matter of adhering to long established norms.

Yet both the Carolina Sheister, his cunting wife, and John Kerry have all felt free to forward the child of a candidate for political advancement and purposes. I'm sorry people here don't get that, but what do you expect from the Young Pioneers of the United Soviet Socialist States of America. Its your ignorance and bigotry that is astounding but I shouldn't be surprised.

If you don't even recognize good manners why should I expect you to not be ignorant bigots.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's not a matter of propriety or arguing with facts. The entire American politically aware population knows Mary Cheney is an out, adult child of the VP. That's not the issue, that's not why people are complaining. They aren't upset over the facts.

It's a matter of manners. There has been a long unwritten rule not to bring family into campaign issues. It was true of Reagan's adult children, it was true of Gore's adult children. No one brought up their opponents children in political stump speeches or debates. It's a matter of adhering to long established norms.

Yet both the Carolina Sheister, his cunting wife, and John Kerry have all felt free to forward the child of a candidate for political advancement and purposes. I'm sorry people here don't get that, but what do you expect from the Young Pioneers of the United Soviet Socialist States of America. Its your ignorance and bigotry that is astounding but I shouldn't be surprised.

If you don't even recognize good manners why should I expect you to not be ignorant bigots.[/quote]

I love the fact, given the trail of slime both you and the Bush campaign have left during Election 2004, that you now are concerned about good manners.

Is referring to "the Carolina Sheister" and particularly "his cunting wife" your idea of good manners?
 
Liebermann was too Jewish. (He was the most intelligent of the bunch, he deserved the nomination more than the others. His religion should have been a non-factor.)
Lieberman was too Republican to be a Democratic candidate for President.


About Mary Cheney. First, the obligatory PAD quote:
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're all crybabies. This is hardball season on both sides. If you can't take a kick in the balls stay out of the game.[/quote]

Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney in his debate, and nobody said anything. Dick Cheney could have said something right there if he were upset about it.

If family is off limits, then why did the Bush campaign attack John McCain's wife and daughter during the 2000 primary? What about when they brought up McCain's 15 year old daughter having an abortion? Is that not crossing the line? Or is that ok, because it helped Bush, who afterall is on a mission from god?
 
I seem to remember a PIVOTAL (for me) point in the VP debates where this issue came up. Cheney said his peice... basically saying he doesn;t agree with the PRez but supports his deiscions. Then Edwards stated that Cheney's daughter was gay and that he was sure he loved her and wanted her to have equal rights. Edwards then laced into Bush's amedment proposal. Cheney's response? A very dignified... "Thank you for your nice comments towards my family." PERIOD, end quote. It was quite a shocking "defeat" in debate terms. I say this because this is old news, Kerry just MENTIONED the girls name. He didn't say anything ill about it, and he definitly did less than Edwards did in front of Cheney himself. It's not that big of a deal... it wasn't even an insult. It's a well known fact.

This would usually be the post where PAD stops responding because a good point was made. Let's see if this holds true... any takers?

EDIT: Post above got in while I was writing, this... oh well :).
 
Some more good reading material on the alleged fracas, care of Salon. And pumbaa, I expect PAD will continue to push this as long as the issue remains in heavy circulation on Fox News and Drudge. After that, he'll fade away until the Repubs come up with their next red-herring issue.

After all, we don't want America to remember that Kerry won ALL THREE DEBATES....and that Bush couldn't remember saying that he didn't care where bin Laden is.....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/15/mary_cheney/index.html

Oct. 15, 2004 | America's most notorious lesbian is back.

In the final presidential debate, John Kerry responded to a gay-rights question with a reference to Vice President Dick Cheney's gay daughter. The vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, immediately went ballistic, condemning Kerry in her most moralistic tones as "not a good man" for the "cheap and tawdry political trick." By Thursday morning, it was all over the news networks, with the vice president also impugning Kerry's character and describing himself as "a pretty angry father." CNN's Wolf Blitzer gravely speculated that the controversy could dominate the entire post-debate landscape. Well, yeah, if the Cheneys -- supposedly outraged by the violation of their daughter's privacy -- get their way and keep the issue burning brightly in the public eye.

How incredibly sad for Mary Cheney, the lesbian in question. And not for the reasons that her parents and the pundits have been screaming about.

First, let's dispense with the comic aspects of the parental indignation:

Mary Cheney has been happily out of the closet for at least a decade, so John Kerry was hardly dragging her out against her will. She spent the late '90s working as a veritable professional lesbian, as gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Co. Dick Cheney himself has been using her sexuality on the campaign trail. Click here to watch a Human Rights Campaign ad with him on the stump on Aug. 24, 2004: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter ... " The Bush-Cheney administration has shamelessly used homosexuality as a wedge issue, never hesitating to play the sodomite card when it serves their political ends. John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney in response to a similar gay-rights question just eight days earlier in the veep debate. Dick Cheney responded by thanking him for his kind remarks.

Maybe Dick's indignation began later that night watching "The Daily Show." Jon Stewart poked fun at Edwards for opportunistically screaming GAY DAUGHTER! GAY DAUGHTER! to any homophobe out there who still hadn't heard about it.

It didn't go much further, but twice in one week was apparently too much -- for the Cheneys and for the media. The conservative cable clones began piling on. Even some liberals have been squeamish about the Democrats invoking Mary's lesbianism so shamelessly.

But they just don't get it. Much of the gay population is incensed. At the media.

Let's get one thing straight. It is not an insult to call a proudly public lesbian a lesbian. It's an insult to gasp when someone calls her a lesbian. That's how all the gays I have spoken to the past 24 hours perceived the press response. You're embarrassed for us. And it's infuriating.


Consider the way a paraplegic or a blind person feels when you act just a little too sympathetic about their "plight." We don't want your pity! Can you see how insulting it is?

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 ..."

It's not a dirty word, John. And why is the press reacting like he exposed a breast?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I love the fact, given the trail of slime both you and the Bush campaign have left during Election 2004, that you now are concerned about good manners.

Is referring to "the Carolina Sheister" and particularly "his cunting wife" your idea of good manners?[/quote]

Do you see my name on a ballot Dennis? Do you see me as a commentator on TV? Am I in any way a major political figure? I call them as I see them.

There are a time in a place for every word in the English language to be aptly applied as the best possible description of an individual. In the case of John Edwards, sheister fits. In the case of his wife, cunt fits. So I was wrong to use it as an adverb instead of an adjective.

Sue me and fuck you very much.

kerry_is_so_9-10.jpg
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Bush almost got half of the popular votes in the 2000 election. Not exactly a popular mandate but he has run his entire presidency like he was given one. After 9/11 he had the Democrats and the rest of the world rallying behind him. Rather than harness that once-in-a-lifetime moment for real bi-partisanship and global goodwill, Bush pissed it all away. The GOP started hammering through their legislation and Bush alienated many of our long-time allies. He had a golden opportunity to be a great president but he was too small-minded and partisan to seize it.

The only reason he hasn't been impeached by now for misleading us into a quagmire, is that the GOP controls all three braches of government.

The only thing I can totally agree with this administration on is the Do Not Call list. That was great. Everything else, not great. Even when it was something I agreed with, like going after Osama in Afghanistan, he pulled out most of the troops to invade Iraq. WTF?[/quote]

Which longtime allies were alienated? and exactly how was all that faux good will pissed away?
First off we have few true allies in this world (GB)
People got all caught up in the, "we condemn terrorism, our hearts are with the americans" BS after 9\11. transpartent support. Thank God our president had the heart to sack up and make sure we won't be getting slaughtered on our soil anytime soon. you dont wait until the gangbangers across the street playing with guns shoot somebody or themselves, you call the cops and protect yourself, your property, and your family.

There was no misleading done. you socialists scream, "LIAR" when your lamb of a candidate signed the approval after seeing identical intelligence reports as the President. Why is that? Did Kerry BELIEVE the same way the President BELIEVED, or did he decide it was the popular thing to do at the time? While he is a shapshifting worm I actually think his BELIEF on the issue was a mirror of the Presidents BELIEF.
There was no misleading done.

At worst it was a good decision made on bad information.
At best those weapons are in a neighboring middle-eastern country.

How exactly does your, "smarter, more trustworthy, more diplomatic, and all-around better on both foreign and domestic issues", egotist handle that situation better?

I wonder how many participants of this thread will even vote.
God Bless America.
The older I get the more I love our country.
 
I got in here late, but let me touch on an older point: Even though I'm pretty damn conservative, Lieberman is a man I completely respect.

And I agree with paz9x. Bush didn't deliberately mislead anybody. It was a decision made on faulty information.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='dennis_t']I love the fact, given the trail of slime both you and the Bush campaign have left during Election 2004, that you now are concerned about good manners.

Is referring to "the Carolina Sheister" and particularly "his cunting wife" your idea of good manners?[/quote]

Do you see my name on a ballot Dennis? Do you see me as a commentator on TV? Am I in any way a major political figure? I call them as I see them.

There are a time in a place for every word in the English language to be aptly applied as the best possible description of an individual. In the case of John Edwards, sheister fits. In the case of his wife, cunt fits. So I was wrong to use it as an adverb instead of an adjective.

Sue me and shaq-fu you very much.[/quote]

Good manners are good manners, regardless of forum, PAD -- and the word "cunt" is not good manners, ever.

Try using it on a woman standing right in front of you and see if she giggles or slaps the hell out of you.
 
[quote name='Pylis']And I agree with paz9x. Bush didn't deliberately mislead anybody. It was a decision made on faulty information.[/quote]

Except that the Bush Administration were the folks cooking the data.

Have you forgotten the Office of Special Plans, headed by Wolfowitz, which was started to cook up intelligence to justify the Iraq War because all the CIA data said there might not be WMD in Iraq?

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Office_of_Special_Plans

Bush didn't like the facts he was hearing, so he had his people go out and cook up new facts.

And when the weapons inspectors weren't giving him the information he wanted, he yanked them out of Iraq and attacked with little to no international support.

This is the problem with Bush you folks won't own up to. He doesn't base his decisions on facts. He decides, and then he alters or distorts the facts to support his decision. The man has no grounding in reality, a fact we saw time and again in the debates when he was unable of even owning up to simple truths (yes, he does own a lumber mill; yes, he did say he wasn't worried about bin Laden; yes, half a million jobs have been lost on his watch)
 
What's wrong with stating the truth? We all know Mary Cheney is gay, is there a problem with stating the TRUTH? I mean, Bush lies all the time, PAD, I'd figure you'd have more of a problem with that with your "good manners."
 
[quote name='paz9x']Which longtime allies were alienated? and exactly how was all that faux good will pissed away?[/quote]

France & Germany for two. And Bush destroyed that good will by insisting we go after Iraq when there was no link whatsoever to 9/11.

First off we have few true allies in this world (GB)
People got all caught up in the, "we condemn terrorism, our hearts are with the americans" BS after 9\11. transpartent support.

It wasn't transparent support, it was just short-lived thanks to Bush.

There was no misleading done. you socialists scream, "LIAR" when your lamb of a candidate signed the approval after seeing identical intelligence reports as the President. Why is that? Did Kerry BELIEVE the same way the President BELIEVED, or did he decide it was the popular thing to do at the time? While he is a shapshifting worm I actually think his BELIEF on the issue was a mirror of the Presidents BELIEF.
There was no misleading done.

I'm surprised people still don't get this: Kerry voted to allow the use of force as a negotiating tool to force Saddam to disarm. Bush had given Congress the assurance that he would exhaust all diplomacy first and war was a last resort. He lied.

At worst it was a good decision made on bad information.
At best those weapons are in a neighboring middle-eastern country.

Read the article on Saddam in the latest Time magazine. He destroyed his WMDs after the first Gulf War. He fooled his own generals into thinking thet had the weapons prior to the new war, but they didn't.

How exactly does your, "smarter, more trustworthy, more diplomatic, and all-around better on both foreign and domestic issues", egotist handle that situation better?

By not being an ignorant cowboy who makes up his mind first, then distorts facts to support himself.

I wonder how many participants of this thread will even vote.
God Bless America.
The older I get the more I love our country.

Damn right, I'm voting. At this point though, I'm just hoping the Republicans let it be counted correctly.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='paz9x']Which longtime allies were alienated? and exactly how was all that faux good will pissed away?[/quote]

France & Germany for two. And Bush destroyed that good will by insisting we go after Iraq when there was no link whatsoever to 9/11.
[/quote]

Baloney. When was the last time France was a true ally of the U.S.? They haven't been exactly helpful to us for a long, long, long time. You might argue Germany, but then again it was Chancellor Schroeder who injected anti-Americanism into German politics for purely partisan political reasons, so who pissed the goodwill away there?
 
Do you hear that? It's the sound of the Repub's lesbian distraction sinking like a lead balloon in the face of common sense and reason.

Now perhaps we can get back to Kerry's debate three-peat, and especially Bush's shifting tones for all three meetings. Watching him, I thought back to Al Gore's shifting tones in the 2000 debates, and how he was tarred and feathered for it. It will be interesting to see if the pundits do the same to Bush, who went from peevish to pissed to sunshine-and-lollipops-flecked-with-a-bit-of-mouth-spittle.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/10/15/gay/index.html

Oct. 15, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mary Cheney typically works quietly behind the scenes on her father's vice presidential campaign, but she was dragged front-and-center after John Kerry noted that she is a lesbian during his debate with President Bush.

Her parents were furious at Kerry. But others who have publicly navigated the waters of politics and homosexuality say Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife may have overreacted to what Kerry called an attempt to compliment them on how they have dealt with having a lesbian daughter.

The Cheneys went on the attack immediately after the debate, where Kerry had suggested their daughter's sexual identity was formed at birth.

"I'm a pretty angry father," said the vice president. "Cheap and tawdry political trick," charged his wife.

A campaign spokeswoman said Mary Cheney, who runs operations in the vice president's campaign office, declined to comment -- as is typically the case.

But others said Kerry's comments seemed well within bounds, especially because Mary Cheney has been public about her sexuality and because her father has discussed it openly before.

Steve Gunderson, a former Republican congressman who is gay, called Kerry's comments "absolutely appropriate."

"It's trying to put a human face and make clear the issue of one's sexual orientation does not honor partisan lines," said Gunderson, who used to represent Wisconsin.


The flap was ignited during the presidential debate Wednesday night, when Kerry was asked whether homosexuality is a choice.

"We're all God's children," he said. "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 a choice."

Kerry said in a statement Thursday that he "was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with the issue."

Running mate John Edwards noted that Cheney has raised his daughter's sexuality on his own, while Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, wondered whether Mrs. Cheney was ashamed of her daughter.

That prompted a sharp response from Mary Cheney's sister, Liz, who also works on the campaign.

"It has nothing do with shame. And I think Mrs. Edwards was also out of line. Mary is one of my heroes. And it has nothing to do with being ashamed of Mary," Liz Cheney told CNN's Paula Zahn.

Rep. Dick Gephardt defended Kerry on a subject he knows well. His daughter is a lesbian, too. He said, "What John Kerry said was very kind."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Baloney. When was the last time France was a true ally of the U.S.? They haven't been exactly helpful to us for a long, long, long time. You might argue Germany, but then again it was Chancellor Schroeder who injected anti-Americanism into German politics for purely partisan political reasons, so who pissed the goodwill away there?[/quote]

Both France and Germany were part of the original Desert Storm coalition.

Schroeder was anti-Iraqi War not anti-American. You can be against Bush and the Iraq War without being anti-American, but conservatives do like to sling that insult around willy-nilly.

"Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder reasserted Germany's right to disagree with the United States over Iraq, adding that it would be wrong to interpret his country's opposition to the war as anti-Americanism."

Here's a link to Schroeder's comments http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/09/10/international0553EDT0466.DTL

Bush destroyed to global good will after 9/11 by pushing for an invasion of Iraq.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The statement Kerry made last night about Mary Cheney is blowing up everywhere I've turned today on broadcast, cable, internet and talk radio. The talking heads are having a field day with this. Forget the spin about Kerry winning the debate, his remarks and the people talking about him are overshadowing it.

I think the whole tactic has backfired tremendously and is showing the left as bigots. Bigots? The left? Obviously the statement about Mary Cheney was meant to embarass President Bush and VP Cheney on the issue of gay marriage. Unfortunately Bush and Cheney are seperated on the issue in a public way. In addition to that this was the second time Mary Cheney was brought up in debates, the first by the Presidential half of the ticket.

The purpose?

Obviously someone or some piece of research in Kerry's campaign believes that if the nation knew Mary Cheney was a lesbian the Republican base would abandon the ticket. Problem is, everyone has known, everyone knew at the 2000 convention. People have known that the Cheney's have accepted Mary's partner into their family.

Conclustion? Democrats, blind with rage that they're still not comfortably ahead, determine that all Republicans are ignorant, redneck hicks with gunracks on the back of their pickup trucks and a dead deer draining on the bedliner, driving home at 80 MPH tossing empty Buds out on the interstate and will be completely SHOCKED at this news. Guess what, there is no outrage on the right, except that Kerry stooped so low.

Of all the gay people in life why pick on one that hasn't made her persona, face, voice or comments very public in a very public year? How many more gay people in public life could have been used as illustrations that people could relate with? Rosie O' Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Barney Frank or hell this years criminal messiah Jim McGreevey would have been appropriate. Answer: John Kerry wanted the "bigotry" of the right to eat up the Bush/Cheney ticket.

Unfortunately not one caller on the War Room (Regional network broadcast.), Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh has expressed any outrage over Mary Cheney being a lesbian. There have been no angry posts on Free Republic over this "outing". To the contrary, every piece of commentary, phone call and monologue has summarily declared "We know, we knew, we didn't care, we all know gay people and Kerry was a bigot for bringing up this cheap personal political attack."

Of course all of you Kool Aid drinkers will rally around the "Bush and Cheney are hypocrites if what you say is true PAD." but as usual, you'll all be wrong. Shock of shock people on the right know and love gay people. We wouldn't wish them harm and live with full knowledge of their lives. Just because we're drawing a line in the sand and saying no to gay marriage doesn't mean we're full of hate.

Then again the party of the purple tin tub only knows the sterotypes they've concocted for the last 20 years about their opponents. Unfortunately that sterotype is as dated as bucked tooth Asians doing nothing but laundry for a living, illiterate incomprehensible watermellon and fried chicken eating black people, hooked nose Jewish money lenders and Mexicans that sleep all day instead of work. Unfortunately for Democrats the rest of the sterotypes have been shamed into history and the reality of this sterotype has yet to smack them in the face.

Don't worry though it will. It will be confirmed during the early morning hours of November 3rd when the red states carry the headlines. Democrats will then spend the next two months before inaguration wondering why they lost. It's because you're bigots stupid![/quote]

wow calling some a bigot, thats the pot calling the kettle black, suddenly u are the advocate for gay rights, its funny how u are so against gay marriage but suddenly u are the gay crusader. Seems like a flip flopper to me. Get a clue, and get one for Mrs. Cheney, cause she didnt have her daughter and her life partner up on the stage during the RNC, so who is really the bigot
 
[quote name='dennis_t']
Except that the Bush Administration were the folks cooking the data.

Have you forgotten the Office of Special Plans, headed by Wolfowitz, which was started to cook up intelligence to justify the Iraq War because all the CIA data said there might not be WMD in Iraq?
[/quote]
Actually, Russia and Britain had the same intelligence.
 
Where was all this indignant GOP rage when Alan Keyes called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist" because she's a lesbian? Or did they keep quiet because Keyes didn't defeat Bush in all three debates?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Article about the intelligence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=google
Written by two Pulitzer winners and at least one Republican.

I've noticed that no one wants to touch my earlier point... Good thinking.[/quote]

Thats probably because there is no rebuttle.
I dont understand this supposed uproar over Kerry's comment. I however did not hear it or see a transcript however from what I gether there wasnt much to it.
 
Thats probably because there is no rebuttle.
I dont understand this supposed uproar over Kerry's comment. I however did not hear it or see a transcript however from what I gether there wasnt much to it.
There really isn't anything to it. Its not an insult or a smear. The question was if they believed that people are born gay, and Kerry was simply making the point that it doesn't matter how you're brought up or who you're parents are, you could be gay and its just who you are. And if a daughter of someone as conservative as Dick Cheney is gay, and she certainly was not brought up that way, then anyone could be.

If they want to act like its some great insult, then they are the ones making their daughter look and probably feel bad, not Kerry. It was well known, it wasn't some big secret that he revealed, like, Dick Cheney's Daughter Is Gay! GASP!
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
Thats probably because there is no rebuttle.
I dont understand this supposed uproar over Kerry's comment. I however did not hear it or see a transcript however from what I gether there wasnt much to it.
There really isn't anything to it. Its not an insult or a smear. The question was if they believed that people are born gay, and Kerry was simply making the point that it doesn't matter how you're brought up or who you're parents are, you could be gay and its just who you are. And if a daughter of someone as conservative as Dick Cheney is gay, and she certainly was not brought up that way, then anyone could be.

If they want to act like its some great insult, then they are the ones making their daughter look and probably feel bad, not Kerry. It was well known, it wasn't some big secret that he revealed, like, Dick Cheney's Daughter Is Gay! GASP![/quote]

it bothers me that something as important as our presidential race is over taken by meaningless facets as this.
 
[quote name='Paz9x']it bothers me that something as important as our presidential race is over taken by meaningless facets as this.[/quote]

But it's NOT meaningless, it's one of the most important issues of the election. Let me tell you why.

Freedom of association is a basic right protected by our Constituion. It is not "afforded" or granted to us as Kerry spoke of in the debate. Our rights exist as a given and the Constitution is a limitation on Government to protect such rights. This is a MAJOR gaffe in kerry's 'philosophy' which was not questioned but should have been. But, I digress...

Bush detailed his regard for the principle of freedom when given the "Gay" question at the end of the debate and then contradicted this principle by explaining thet his ammendment proposal is to protect marriage. How can curtailing freedom give us more freedom ?
This is a major contradiction on the principle that founded this country. THAT is why it's the most important issue, philisophically.

Freedom of association means many things. Who we hang out with on a Friday night, who we live with, where we go to school or work. We have the freedom to enter into LEGAL relationships also. The legal marriage contract and the business contract are one and the same and should not be infringed upon by government. The government's job is simply to mediate disputes arising within the terms and actions of the contract.

Kerry, on the other hand, made a major political gaffe. He failed to properly address the issue by championing it for his special interest group constituents who are gay. How could a gay person believe that Kerry will support gay marriage from the meandering drivel he gave for the answer to that question?

Republicans should be spinning about how Kerry has no real policy on gay marriage as his response illustrated. But instead they are focusing on being insulted, which the voters will forget about tomorrow. Kerry should be pointing out Bush's inconsistancy on freedom. Unfortunately that might backfire on him since he doesn't seem to even understand the basic principle of the Constitition
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Paz9x']it bothers me that something as important as our presidential race is over taken by meaningless facets as this.[/quote]

But it's NOT meaningless, it's one of the most important issues of the election. Let me tell you why.

Freedom of association is a basic right protected by our Constituion. It is not "afforded" or granted to us as Kerry spoke of in the debate. Our rights exist as a given and the Constitution is a limitation on Government to protect such rights. This is a MAJOR gaffe in kerry's 'philosophy' which was not questioned but should have been. But, I digress...

Bush detailed his regard for the principle of freedom when given the "Gay" question at the end of the debate and then contradicted this principle by explaining thet his ammendment proposal is to protect marriage. How can curtailing freedom give us more freedom ?
This is a major contradiction on the principle that founded this country. THAT is why it's the most important issue, philisophically.

Freedom of association means many things. Who we hang out with on a Friday night, who we live with, where we go to school or work. We have the freedom to enter into LEGAL relationships also. The legal marriage contract and the business contract are one and the same and should not be infringed upon by government. The government's job is simply to mediate disputes arising within the terms and actions of the contract.

Kerry, on the other hand, made a major political gaffe. He failed to properly address the issue by championing it for his special interest group constituents who are gay. How could a gay person believe that Kerry will support gay marriage from the meandering drivel he gave for the answer to that question?

Republicans should be spinning about how Kerry has no real policy on gay marriage as his response illustrated. But instead they are focusing on being insulted, which the voters will forget about tomorrow. Kerry should be pointing out Bush's inconsistancy on freedom. Unfortunately that might backfire on him since he doesn't seem to even understand the basic principle of the Constitition[/quote]

as I stated i did not hear it myself nor read a trasncript.
I was however referring to the "insult". its the lack of serious stances on policy and the headlines focusing on things like the "insult" instead of the actual meat of the candidates. Why cant I hear about Kerry's plans, why do I read an article regarding the "insult" instead of a compare and contrast between Kerry's plan and Bush's track record on the issues.
There's no chart being flashed across news channels the way these types of petty sidetracking facets are.
Im not proof reading that so dont start flaming me on my illiterate spelling. tia
 
But it's NOT meaningless, it's one of the most important issues of the election. Let me tell you why.
I see the issue over him mentioning Mary Cheney as a meaningless distraction, the gay marriage issue is big though. Bush wants to be the first President to put in our Constitution something that is bigoted, discriminatory, and takes rights away from a specific group of people. That would be completely disgraceful. That is NOT what the Constitution is meant to be. Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
But it's NOT meaningless, it's one of the most important issues of the election. Let me tell you why.
I see the issue over him mentioning Mary Cheney as a meaningless distraction, the gay marriage issue is big though. Bush wants to be the first President to put in our Constitution something that is bigoted, discriminatory, and takes rights away from a specific group of people. That would be completely disgraceful. That is NOT what the Constitution is meant to be. Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?[/quote]

The constitution is abused, its not used how it was intended in some aspects.
do you think when the portion regarding the seperation of church and state was written they really intended to have prayer banned in schools, or to have the cross removed from government seals or to have a statue of the ten commandments removed from government property because church and state must be seperate?
dont use the intended meaning of the constitution as a platform because that has already been erroded.
As an American, no there shouldnt be more legislation blocking gay marriage. over legislation is a problem, government passing legislation that mandates the type of people we are is obsurd.
As a Christian gay marriage bothers me as marriage is to be a union between a man and a woman, but its not my business to bar others from engaging in a life choice that does nothing infringe upon my life.
nor shoudl it be any politicians business.
 
do you think when the portion regarding the seperation of church and state was written they really intended to have prayer banned in schools, or to have the cross removed from government seals or to have a statue of the ten commandments removed from government property because church and state must be seperate?
Here, you can pray in school privately, and you can wear crosses and headscarves and things that display your religion (unlike France), but I think not allowing the teacher to lead the class in a prayer is fair. The Ten Commandments thing was not just on government property, it was in a court. They are some religion's laws, but they are not necessarily our laws, and I don't think its appropriate for a court. I have no problem with it in a public area, or other public property. But the Ten Commandments specificly conflicts with a court because they are laws. Having a religion's set of laws inside a courthouse is an endorsement of that religion. Separation of church and state is about freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

I support a religion's right not to recognize gay marriages, and if your opinion is that its wrong, then I respect that, but I agree with your statement that its neither my nor government's business how someone wants to live.
 
Basically the repubs are making a big deal out of this so the media doesn't play the fact that Bush lied during the debates about not caring where Osama Bin Laden was. If the media harped on that instead of Mary Cheny, there would be no way Bush could win.
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! YOU SAID HER NAME!!!!!

You are using her for political "gain"... blah blah blah.
 
bread's done
Back
Top