Cheney Daughter Remark

[khirkhib]

No democrats didn't like it when people like Rush called Chelsea a dog.  An obese child, generally, has a medical problem.  It would be wrong to call somebody's kid a tub of lard, that is an insult.  Lesbian is not a dirty word it is an accepted discription of a woman that has homosexual relationships.  It shouldn't be a big deal.  Who cares...she's a lesbian, good for her.

[NHPolitico]

Someone's sexuality is a private and personal thing, even if they are out of the closet.  Fat people are out of the closet as being fat. You don't bring it up in front of 45 million people.

[NHPolitico]

I didn't mean to equate lesbian with tub of lard as both perjoratives.  I just meant that there are things that aren't appropriate to say in front of 45 million people-- and mentioning that someone's child is gay is one such thing.

[Pollwatch99]

No democrats didn't like it when people like Rush called Chelsea a dog.  An obese child, generally, has a medical problem.  It would be wrong to call somebody's kid a tub of lard, that is an insult.  Lesbian is not a dirty word it is an accepted discription of a woman that has homosexual relationships.  It shouldn't be a big deal.  Who cares...she's a lesbian, good for her.

According to Washington Post 64% think it was inapporiate. Sounds about right; in this country we've got 35%-40% far left that think this is fine.  35%-40% far right, who will think it's wrong.  That leaves 20%-30% who are moderate.  At 64%, the moderates have spoken and spoken rather loudly

[Acastus]

Whether it was right or wrong for Kerry to make the remark is immaterial.  What is important is: 1) whether the story has legs, 2) whether a substantial proportion of likely voters believe it was a low blow, and 3) whether those voters who believe it was a low blow will be decisively influenced by the event when they cast their vote. 

So far the answers seems to be: 1) yes, 2) yes (see quoted ABC poll) and 3) unknown at this time.  I still tend to be skeptical about whether this will truly have any effect (as the DUI story did in 2000), but I didn't think the story would have legs either .

[dougrhess]

No democrats didn't like it when people like Rush called Chelsea a dog.  An obese child, generally, has a medical problem.  It would be wrong to call somebody's kid a tub of lard, that is an insult.  Lesbian is not a dirty word it is an accepted discription of a woman that has homosexual relationships.  It shouldn't be a big deal.  Who cares...she's a lesbian, good for her.

According to Washington Post 64% think it was inapporiate. Sounds about right; in this country we've got 35%-40% far left that think this is fine.  35%-40% far right, who will think it's wrong.  That leaves 20%-30% who are moderate.  At 64%, the moderates have spoken and spoken rather loudly

It's a thin opinion, it will change with time when they see the how hypocritical the Cheney conduct is. Also, just because people don't want to hear the word lesbian doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. It was, after all, a question about gays.

[dougrhess]

Washington Post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, Kerry had to distance himself in Iowa from a Mary Beth Cahill comment that Mary was "fair game" in the campaign. Kerry said he disagreed with her characterization. The funny part? John Edwards called Mary "fair game" politically, too!

Intentional political stunt and refusal to take accountability by the esteemed Senator from Massachutes

Look, Mary Cheney used to do public relations to the gay community for Coors. If she's willing to use her sexual orientation in a business position and bring her partner to events, she's obviously not only not closeted, but views it as just who she is. The only people who are upset are people who are quesy about it.  If it was somehow "rude" wouldn't gays be up in arms??

Heck, Adrew Sullivan agrees: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php

(Oh, Vorlan, still waiting....)

Do you really believe that if Edwards had a lesbian daughter and Bush had brought that up in the answer, it wouldn't have been a firestorm?

That would be a real hard sell

It might have been a firestorm, but from the right, not the left. Jeez. I mean KandE aren't bringing it up to taunt, if anything they bring it up to neutralize the anti-gay bashing of Bush.

[NHPolitico]

But it doesn't mean you have to mention one particular lesbian-- the out-of-the-limelight daughter of your opponent.

[Pollwatch99]

Whether it was right or wrong for Kerry to make the remark is immaterial.  What is important is: 1) whether the story has legs, 2) whether a substantial proportion of likely voters believe it was a low blow, and 3) whether those voters who believe it was a low blow will be decisively influenced by the event when they cast their vote. 

So far the answers seems to be: 1) yes, 2) yes (see quoted ABC poll) and 3) unknown at this time.  I still tend to be skeptical about whether this will truly have any effect (as the DUI story did in 2000), but I didn't think the story would have legs either .

This was an intentional political stunt that backfired.  It continues again today, Kerry suggesting Bush's policies could lead to a draft.  THe party that introduced that into the debate was the DEMOCRAT's.  Bush said an empathic NO.  Kerry and the Dem's keep bringing it up.  Let's decide this election on the characther issue that when Bush takes a position he means it and when Kerry takes on it's something you can be sure of.  

[NHPolitico]

It might have been a firestorm, but from the right, not the left. Jeez. I mean KandE aren't bringing it up to taunt, if anything they bring it up to neutralize the anti-gay bashing of Bush.

Voters realize it was politically motivated and that sickens them.

[Acastus]

And another thing.  Isn't it funny that the media constantly complains that modern American political discourse has largely become devoid of real substance, and yet in a presidential debate they end up obsessing about candidate's facial expressions and remarks like Kerry's that have very little to do with substance?  Maybe I'm taking a cheap shot at the media here, but it seems they fuel the "vacuous debate" fire as much as any innate public demand for such material.

[dougrhess]

But it doesn't mean you have to mention one particular lesbian-- the out-of-the-limelight daughter of your opponent.

She's NOT out of the limelight! 

[dougrhess]

And another thing.  Isn't it funny that the media constantly complains that modern American political discourse has largely become devoid of real substance, and yet in a presidential debate they end up obsessing about candidate's facial expressions and remarks like Kerry's that have very little to do with substance?  Maybe I'm taking a cheap shot at the media here, but it seems they fuel the "vacuous debate" fire as much as any innate public demand for such material.

I agree the media is partly to blame. That and the use of tv advertising. However, I'm not sure when it was that substance counted....

[dougrhess]

Whether it was right or wrong for Kerry to make the remark is immaterial.  What is important is: 1) whether the story has legs, 2) whether a substantial proportion of likely voters believe it was a low blow, and 3) whether those voters who believe it was a low blow will be decisively influenced by the event when they cast their vote. 

So far the answers seems to be: 1) yes, 2) yes (see quoted ABC poll) and 3) unknown at this time.  I still tend to be skeptical about whether this will truly have any effect (as the DUI story did in 2000), but I didn't think the story would have legs either .

This was an intentional political stunt that backfired.  It continues again today, Kerry suggesting Bush's policies could lead to a draft.  THe party that introduced that into the debate was the DEMOCRAT's.  Bush said an empathic NO.  Kerry and the Dem's keep bringing it up.  Let's decide this election on the characther issue that when Bush takes a position he means it and when Kerry takes on it's something you can be sure of.  

It won't have legs. The democrats didn't introduce it into the debate is was some kind of rumor, understandably, among the young. Plus, there is a "back door draft" going on which is related. It also brings home the truth that Rice/Cheney/Wolfowitz, et al., completely miscalculated.

[J. J.]

It won't have legs. The democrats didn't introduce it into the debate is was some kind of rumor, understandably, among the young. Plus, there is a "back door draft" going on which is related. It also brings home the truth that Rice/Cheney/Wolfowitz, et al., completely miscalculated.

The Democrates did intorduce it in the US House, in the Person of Kerry supporter Democrat Charles Rangel of NY.

"Democrat John Kerry talks about the draft.  Democrat Charlie Rangel introduces a bill in start up the draft.  What are the Democrats going to do with your children?"

That could be the October surprise.

[rbt48]

I think both Edwards and Kerry's real motivation for mentioning Cheney's gay daughter was to try to keep any small number of right wing Bush supporters they could from the polls.  Face it, they are in this battle to win at any cost.  If they can keep 10,000 "red neck" Bush supporter from voting in FL (because they react with shock that his VP has a gay daughter), then it is fair game to Kerry/Edwards.  The downside risk for them was probably judged to be less as their core supporters are all fully "enlightened" about homosexuality.  

Off topic, but in the VP debate, one question I thought inappropriate was when the moderator asked Cheney if he was mad at Edwards for making so much money in mal-practice suits (my wording based on my recollection of the thrust of the question).  Recall that Cheney was momentarily flustered before responding.  He should have said, "I don't see how that question properly addresses a substantive issue in this election.  What you really are asking me is what is my position on tort reform."  

Once again, the media failed to keep the campaign debate relevant with this type of question.

[dougrhess]

I think both Edwards and Kerry's real motivation for mentioning Cheney's gay daughter was to try to keep any small number of right wing Bush supporters they could from the polls.  Face it, they are in this battle to win at any cost.  If they can keep 10,000 "red neck" Bush supporter from voting in FL (because they react with shock that his VP has a gay daughter), then it is fair game to Kerry/Edwards.  The downside risk for them was probably judged to be less as their core supporters are all fully "enlightened" about homosexuality.  

Off topic, but in the VP debate, one question I thought inappropriate was when the moderator asked Cheney if he was mad at Edwards for making so much money in mal-practice suits (my wording based on my recollection of the thrust of the question).  Recall that Cheney was momentarily flustered before responding.  He should have said, "I don't see how that question properly addresses a substantive issue in this election.  What you really are asking me is what is my position on tort reform."  

Once again, the media failed to keep the campaign debate relevant with this type of question.

At their most devious, it was likely mentioned by K and E to keep the Bush campaign from asking more about gay marriage in the remaining weeks. Afterall, the Rs have used this a wedge issue. It was raised this year just as it was in 1996 and 2000 by the Republicans as a cheap trick to 1) push gay voters to not vote if the Dem supports the anti-gay issue, or 2) remind the Republican right wing base that they are culturally with them.

It can also be seen as an attempt to remind Republican gays of the hypocrisy of voting for people that you may like on taxes, but who are trying to destroy your family. Gays voted 25% for Bush in 2000. I think we'll see much less this time.

[opebo]

Kerry's remark is perfectly reasonable.  What is shameful is Cheney's betrayal of his own family member by supporting a bigoted party with a gay-hating religious agenda.

However I suppose that this agenda is fairly popular in most swing states, so the remark doesn't help Kerry.

[Citizen James]

I think both Edwards and Kerry's real motivation for mentioning Cheney's gay daughter was to try to keep any small number of right wing Bush supporters they could from the polls.  Face it, they are in this battle to win at any cost.  If they can keep 10,000 "red neck" Bush supporter from voting in FL (because they react with shock that his VP has a gay daughter), then it is fair game to Kerry/Edwards.  The downside risk for them was probably judged to be less as their core supporters are all fully "enlightened" about homosexuality.  

I wouldn't be supprised if there is some truth to your statement.   Both sides are in this to win 'at almost any cost'.  It's not going to change my vote, but I did consider it tacky.

If the Bush campaign was smart, they'd also put the smackdown on Alan Keyes, who has made some very rude comments about the Mary Cheney.  It would tacticly make sense, and give them an appearance of consistancy - and the Keyes campaign has about as much chance of winning as Kerry has of taking Utah, so no real tactical loss on that one.

[NHPolitico]

She's NOT out of the limelight! 

Yes, she is. How many times have you seen her campaigning? It's Liz who is out campaigning.

[dougrhess]

She's NOT out of the limelight! 

Yes, she is. How many times have you seen her campaigning? It's Liz who is out campaigning.

She's help public affairs posts that traded on her sexual orientation and she's a senior person on her dad's staff. She attends the debates with her partner. Of course, she's not giving speeches. Why? Republican party has a part of its base that is rabidly homophobic. I agree that it is sad that Cheney is willing to sell his daughter's rights (largely) out to this party.

[Pollwatch99]

Whether it was right or wrong for Kerry to make the remark is immaterial.  What is important is: 1) whether the story has legs, 2) whether a substantial proportion of likely voters believe it was a low blow, and 3) whether those voters who believe it was a low blow will be decisively influenced by the event when they cast their vote. 

So far the answers seems to be: 1) yes, 2) yes (see quoted ABC poll) and 3) unknown at this time.  I still tend to be skeptical about whether this will truly have any effect (as the DUI story did in 2000), but I didn't think the story would have legs either .

This was an intentional political stunt that backfired.  It continues again today, Kerry suggesting Bush's policies could lead to a draft.  THe party that introduced that into the debate was the DEMOCRAT's.  Bush said an empathic NO.  Kerry and the Dem's keep bringing it up.  Let's decide this election on the characther issue that when Bush takes a position he means it and when Kerry takes on it's something you can be sure of.  

It won't have legs. The democrats didn't introduce it into the debate is was some kind of rumor, understandably, among the young. Plus, there is a "back door draft" going on which is related. It also brings home the truth that Rice/Cheney/Wolfowitz, et al., completely miscalculated.

Do you understand the distortion of the Kerry/Edwards campaign when they introduced the phrase "back door draft".  You see, you just made my point about Kerry keeps bringing up the draft to distort as part of another cheap political stunt.  A draft is something that used to refer to required service.  Joining the national guard is a choice, it is not required service.  Yes, individuals who voluntarily joined the guard have had their tour of duty extended, that is absolutely nothing to do with a draft.  If you cannot see that Kerry/Edwards have worked this phrase for political purposes to get the Bush associated with a draft.  Cheap political stunts never win elections, America is not that stupid no matter what the party of the "intellectually superior" believe

[dougrhess]

Do you understand the distortion of the Kerry/Edwards campaign when they introduced the phrase "back door draft".  You see, you just made my point about Kerry keeps bringing up the draft to distort as part of another cheap political stunt.  A draft is something that used to refer to required service.  Joining the national guard is a choice, it is not required service.  Yes, individuals who voluntarily joined the guard have had their tour of duty extended, that is absolutely nothing to do with a draft.  If you cannot see that Kerry/Edwards have worked this phrase for political purposes to get the Bush associated with a draft.  Cheap political stunts never win elections, America is not that stupid no matter what the party of the "intellectually superior" believe

I think the phrase was brought in by people writing about the military, not the Dems. It is not a draft, but a phrase to capture the feelings of some guard members and their families. Cheap political stunts do win campaigns, look at Bush the Elder and Willie Horton.

[Pollwatch99]

Do you understand the distortion of the Kerry/Edwards campaign when they introduced the phrase "back door draft".  You see, you just made my point about Kerry keeps bringing up the draft to distort as part of another cheap political stunt.  A draft is something that used to refer to required service.  Joining the national guard is a choice, it is not required service.  Yes, individuals who voluntarily joined the guard have had their tour of duty extended, that is absolutely nothing to do with a draft.  If you cannot see that Kerry/Edwards have worked this phrase for political purposes to get the Bush associated with a draft.  Cheap political stunts never win elections, America is not that stupid no matter what the party of the "intellectually superior" believe

I think the phrase was brought in by people writing about the military, not the Dems. It is not a draft, but a phrase to capture the feelings of some guard members and their families. Cheap political stunts do win campaigns, look at Bush the Elder and Willie Horton.

We agree it's not a draft. So why is this part of Kerry/Edwards vocab?  Keep that word going during election to scare people.

Willie Horton effect is dem folklaw because they can never accept responsibility for their own actions.  Just like Kerry/Edwards in this campaign; who will not take responsibility for their vote to authorize miltary action in IRAQ.  "We voted to let the President make the choice"  Bogus words to avoid accountability.

If cheap tricks worked then Republicans being responsible for the burning of black churches and the infamous Byrd's dragging death in Texas last year would have worked.  It didn't impact either election.

In this election, if dems lose are we going to hear whining about "Swift Boat ads"?  My take is yes.

[dazzleman]

I think that Kerry's mention of Cheney's daughter was a cheap political stunt.  He could have answered the question without mentioning his opponent's running mate's family.

A president's, or candidate's, family has generally been been off limits during political campaigns, and both parties have generally abided by this.  This comment about Mary Cheney is another example of Democrats looking to use cheap political stunts to rev up their base and possibly drive fundamentalist votes away from Bush/Cheney.

Mrs. Edward's comments were even more inappropriate than Kerry's in my opinion.  Why doesn't this woman talk about her (losing) battle with obesity if she feels such a need to get into peoples' personal affairs.

I think the whole gay issue has been twisted, in any case.  Neither candidate supports gay marriage.  Referenda to outlaw gay marriage have passed overwhelmingly in every state they have been on the ballot.  Even a liberal state like Hawaii changed its constitution rather than abide by a court ruling to allow gay marriage.

Gay marriage has never been legal, so it can hardly be said that Pres. Bush looks to take rights away from gay couples.  He seeks to prevent the status quo on marriage from being changed without the consent of the people.

As far as the politics for this year go, the reality is that gays did not vote for Bush in 2000 and wouldn't vote for him this year, whether or not he supported a constitutional amendement against gay marriage.  And gays are concentrated in states that he can't win anyway.

In any case, people can be gay, or have gays in their family, without fully supporting the gay political agenda.  The Democratic mentality is that if you belong to a "victim" group, you must think the way the "leaders" of that group tell you to think.

But the truth is that even those who claim to ooze tolerance for gays don't really consider them equal, for the most part.  Acceptance is a matter of degree, not a black and white matter.  I don't know anybody, no matter how "tolerant," who would not prefer, in most cases strongly, that their children be heterosexual.  My guess is that the Cheneys fall into a gray area - they love their daughter, probably accept her sexuality grudgingly, while preferring that she were heterosexual, and would rather not discuss the whole thing.  This is not such an unusual, or terrible, position to take.

Kerry should have answered the question without mentioning Mary Cheney.