Jump to content

Kerry's Cheap Shot in the debate ...


ready182
This topic is 6619 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

... why am I not surprised that none of the regular posters on this board have FLAMED Kerry for his anti-gay cheap shot in last nights debate??? Of course I am talking about his obnoxious remark about V.P. Cheney's daughter. No doubt if Cheney had a gay son, Kerry would have called him a cock sucker.

 

Everyone SHOULD know that the children of candidates are off-limits. Whether or not you like to admit it, KERRY is an asshole!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Kerry said nothing about Mary Cheney that either her parents or she herself haven't said themselves. So there was no cheap shot. Kerry also did not use coarse language in discussing her.

 

Furthermore, candidates children are NOT off-limits in campaigns. There has been general consensus in the past few years to not discuss minor children or those who are in college/graduate school and who aren't involved in their parents' political lives. But Mary Cheney is an adult, and an active member of her father's campaign. So she would be a fair target on many grounds. However, she wasn't a target. She was used as an example about how gay people don't consider their sexuality a "choice" or an "option." It's the way we are. We're born gay. And Kerry made the point very gracefully.

 

You, on the other hand, didn't, so kindly stick your head in the nearest commode (like the one down the hall from your office at the RNC?) and flush! x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Everyone SHOULD know that the children of candidates are

>off-limits.

 

Yes, I was just thinking that as I watched the children of the candidates -- all of whom make personal campaign appearances -- jump onstage quickly to be photographed with their parents after the debate.

 

The cheap shot was Bush's "dunno" when asked what he thought about whether gays have a choice of sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>... why am I not surprised that none of the regular posters

>on this board have FLAMED Kerry for his anti-gay cheap shot in

>last nights debate???

 

Perhpas because it's not "anti-gay" to merely state that someone is gay and that they were born that way.

 

>Everyone SHOULD know that the children of candidates are

>off-limits.

 

But she isn't just Cheney's child. Mary Cheney is managing her father's campaign as Bush-Cheney's "Director of Vice Presidential Operations."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>P.S. I'm sorry that Kerry used only Mary Cheney as an

>example. He should have said "If you ask the Vice-President's

>daughter, or Newt Gingrich's sister, or Phyllis Schlafly's

>son, or Rep. Jim Kolbe about whether they chose to be gay. .

>." }(

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you Tri. I think that would have been the best approach!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also contrasts with remarks that Cheney gave Edwards in the Veep debate. Edwards complimented the Cheneys' for supporting their daughter, and Cheney thanked him.

As far as I concerned, Kerry was just stating that regardless of our differences, we ARE all God's children.

(R182, why so defensive??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>... why am I not surprised that none of the regular posters

>on this board have FLAMED Kerry for his anti-gay cheap shot in

>last nights debate??? Of course I am talking about his

>obnoxious remark about V.P. Cheney's daughter. No doubt if

>Cheney had a gay son, Kerry would have called him a cock

>sucker.

>

 

You want us to speak up about his comments? OK. He was totally PC in his remarks. Both him and Edwards were gracious in complimenting and referencing their opponent's child.

 

Indeed, it would have been a low blow if she were in the close or she and her father had not gone on public record about her being a Lesb. But the fact of the matter is, everyone who truly watches politics know about her. To reference her was not in poor taste, it was gracious.

 

>Everyone SHOULD know that the children of candidates are

>off-limits. Whether or not you like to admit it, KERRY is an

>asshole!!!

 

Well, again. If she is running her father's campaign and has testified before congress on qay issues as an activist, then she is definitely in the public arena. Thus she is fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not surprised that none of the regular defenders of Blood-on-his-Hands Bush on this board have FLAMED the president for his anti-Cheney cheap shot in last night's debate??? Of course I am talking about his obnoxious expression of ignorance about whether the Vice President's daughter had any choice about her sexual orientation.

 

Imagine -- Bush and Cheney have been friends for at least a decade. Bush goes and starts wars on Cheney's advice. But Bush now claims that he and Cheney have never had a serious discussion about Mary Cheney being a lesbian? Cheney hasn't been able to convince Bush that Mary is not a sinner, and that she is not gay by choice? That sure tells us a lot about what Bush thinks of Cheney, but the guy ought to keep his opinion to himself. After all, Cheney is just an overdose away from the Presidency.

 

Everyone SHOULD know that slams at Vice Presidents are off-limits. Whether or not you like to admit it, BUSH is an asshole!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad tricky man

 

I really love what Liberal Oasis had to say about all of this today:

 

October 15, 2004

Playing A Weak Hand

(posted Oct. 15 1 AM ET)

 

...there is some logic to what the Bushies are doing here.

 

Although it also shows what a weak hand they are currently playing.

 

Lynne and Dick made Mary the 2nd-day debate story.

 

To them, that's preferable to having Bush's 2002 quote "I truly am not that concerned about [Osama]" dominating the headlines.

 

Since Bush's Osama denial was the clearest lie from last night, and the press caught it right away, it was in danger of being the Thursday lead.

 

Instead, the Cheneys trumped it and bumped it down the page.

 

So in that sense, it was smart spin.

 

But at the same time, it is also grasping at straws, because it doesn't fit into any long-term strategy.

 

(The last two weeks in a prez race can be considered "long-term.")

 

The Bushies are at their nasty best when they take fresh material from their opponents, and use it drive established themes.

 

Any politician can attack. But when your opponent walks into your attack -- in effect, confirming it's accuracy -- that's when an attack really sticks.

 

The Bushies did a fine job with the flip-flop attack, using distorted Kerry quotes to create the perception that Kerry was a chronic waffler.

 

It just lost steam when the caricature didn't show up at the debates.

 

Going into the last debate, a somewhat hastily concocted "big-government liberal" attack line was stressed.

 

But Kerry didn't say anything to feed that beast.

 

So instead of using Kerry's words, Bush had to overcome them yesterday: "last night with a straight face, the senator tried to say his health care plan is not a government plan".

 

A baseless assertion. Not very powerful.

 

Now, with the Mary issue, they are trying to say Kerry is "not a good man," a man capable of a "cheap and tawdry political trick," who is "outrageous" and "inappropriate".

 

These are all words not typically used to attack Kerry. They are not part of any established narrative.

 

And since this Mary story has a very limited shelf life (without a surprise Mary interview, the whole thing probably blows over by Sat.), where can this attack line go from here?

 

Most likely, nowhere. They have no material to drive a "bad, tricky man" theme for the next two weeks.

 

Perhaps they will try anyway.

 

They will be compelled to try anything to distract from the main issues on voters' minds: Iraq, health care, the economy.

 

When the focus is on those issues, as it has been during the debates, Bush loses.

 

Hence, the desire to play up the irrelevant, be it Kerry's anti-Vietnam war protesting or Mary Cheney.

 

However, it's hard to play the distraction game when so much is happening in the real world (news out of Iraq received greater prominence than the Mary story).

 

But with the incumbent stuck below 50% in the polls, and the issues favoring Kerry, distraction is all they have left.

 

It's a very weak position to be in.

 

They are forced to lurch at any opening, even if it doesn't make much long-term sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>... why am I not surprised that none of the regular posters

>on this board have FLAMED Kerry for his anti-gay cheap shot in

>last nights debate???

 

I didn't flame him because I don't think he has done anything wrong.

 

>Of course I am talking about his obnoxious remark about V.P. >Cheney's daughter.

 

There was nothing obnoxious about it. He was only trying to show that being gay was not a choice and he implied that Mary Cheney would confirm that, if asked. This was in rebuttal to Bush's weak "I don't know" reply when asked if he thought is was a choice.

 

>No doubt if Cheney had a gay son, Kerry would have called him a cock

>sucker.

 

Now THIS statement is what is obnoxious and has no basis whatsoever.

He didn't call Mary a cunt lapper so why would you make such an analogy?

 

>Everyone SHOULD know that the children of candidates are

>off-limits.

 

Oh! Like the Replublican's wouldn't try it if they could? If their children are to be off-limits then they shouldn't parade them in front of the electorate.

 

>Whether or not you like to admit it, KERRY is an asshole!!!

 

WRONG - The asshole was standing to Kerry's left!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

RE: Bad tricky man

 

>I really love what Liberal Oasis had to say about all of this

>today:

>

>October 15, 2004

>Playing A Weak Hand

>(posted Oct. 15 1 AM ET)

>

>...there is some logic to what the Bushies are doing here.

>

>Although it also shows what a weak hand they are currently

>playing.

>

>Lynne and Dick made Mary the 2nd-day debate story.

>

>To them, that's preferable to having Bush's 2002 quote "I

>truly am not that concerned about [Osama]" dominating the

>headlines.

 

Good point - I hadn't thought about it that way.

 

Although it is my understanding that Ms Cheney's hissy fit was almost immediately after the debate, so did they really have the time to formulate a stratagy?

 

I think it was more a case of her being pissed off at what she thought was an invasion of privacy. And if she really thinks privacy is possible in today's political climate, especially a few days before the most important Presidential election of our life time, then she is truly living in a bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private Parts

 

>Although it is my understanding that Ms Cheney's hissy fit was

>almost immediately after the debate, so did they really have

>the time to formulate a stratagy?

 

It is hard to imagine that Mary Cheney's parents somehow feel that their or their daughters privacy has been invade given the following facts:

 

After graduating from Colorado College, Cheney went to work as a gay community liaison for Coors Brewing Company, where she was instrumental in ending a 20-year boycott by the gay community of that company. Cheney left Coors in 2000 to work with her father and the Bush campaign. In 2002, Mary Cheney served on the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance formed within the Republican party to help increase tolerance within the party for gays and lesbians, and others.

 

While working for a beer company as a gay community liason nor working on a gay-straight alliance should be taken by anyone as an indication of the sexual orientation of any individual, Mary Cheney has acknowledged her lesbian on several occassions in public and to the press. A simple Google search would be replete with such references. The one above happens to be from the Gay and Lesbian Times (a very well done and excellent gay newspaper out of San Diego): http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=2431&issue=851 but it was no secret with Mr. Cheney was first selected to be a running mate in 2000 that his daughter was a lesbian.

 

Beyond that, how anyone without a hearing problem or a bias can assume that Kerry's comment was anything other than appropriate to the question at hand, gracious and anything but an "anti-gay cheap shot," much less "obnoxious."

 

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Edwards and Kerry pointed out that Cheney's daughter was lesbian, so it was a coordinated, planned strategy. The clear purpose was to embarrass the Cheneys, and it was mean spirited and malicious. It is irrelevant that she is out or that the Cheneys are not embarrassed. What is relevant is the malice and meanness of Kerry and Edwards. It gives us a glimpse of the real Kerry behind the botox facade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Filthy Republican Hypocrites

 

>Both Edwards and Kerry pointed out that Cheney's daughter was

>lesbian, so it was a coordinated, planned strategy. The clear

>purpose was to embarrass the Cheneys, and it was mean spirited

>and malicious. It is irrelevant that she is out or that the

>Cheneys are not embarrassed. What is relevant is the malice

>and meanness of Kerry and Edwards. It gives us a glimpse of

>the real Kerry behind the botox facade.

 

The above is typical garbage from the filthy Republican hatemongers who infest this board -- American would be so much better off if each and every one of them was thrown into the nearest river.

 

It is impossible to exaggerate the hypocrisy of Cheney bringing up his daughter's orientation in his own political appearances and then claiming he is angry that someone else has violated his family's "privacy" by doing the same thing he did. Scum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Both Edwards and Kerry pointed out that Cheney's daughter was

>lesbian, so it was a coordinated, planned strategy. The clear

>purpose was to embarrass the Cheneys, and it was mean spirited

>and malicious. It is irrelevant that she is out or that the

>Cheneys are not embarrassed. What is relevant is the malice

>and meanness of Kerry and Edwards. It gives us a glimpse of

>the real Kerry behind the botox facade.

 

Why is it embarrassing to the Cheneys to have their daugheter to be identified as gay. First of all, it isn't something to be embarrassed about, and secondly, they have both talked about and aknowledged it many times in public. They make a point about supporting their gay daughter. So where is the embarassment?

 

There was no malice to Kerry's remarks. Especially if you heard them live. The only malice was in Lynn Cheney's response to them. This is nothing but a Karl Rove/Repeblican stunt, and no one if being fooled by it (except you).

 

You really do need to turn off the Fox News, and find a real source of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm surprised at (well, not really) that a statement based on "we're all God's children" and <to paraphrase> "being gay is not a choice" is making the headlines, but, Alan Keyes statement that gays, including Mary Cheney, are "selfish hedonists" has been ignored.

 

hmmm . . .

 

I wonder if the statement by Kerry, which was similar to a statement made in the VP debates, is being used as a smokescreen to distract from Bush's statement <to paraphrase> that "I'm not concerned about Osama bin Laden."

 

Of course, "cheap shot" assumes there is something wrong with being gay. Or, it assumes the fact that the Cheney's have a lesbian daughter, who has a girlfriend, and who's involved in her father's campaign, may upset part of the Republicans' religious right base. So, does exposing hypocrasy make a statement a cheap shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

With a few notable exceptions, of course.

 

Had it been Bush or Cheney who had made a comment about a gay or lesbian child of Kerry or Edwards, Daddy & Hoo would have needed to upgrade the M.C. servers to accomodate all the pissing and moaning.

 

Ready

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Filthy Republican Hypocrites

 

>The above is typical garbage from the filthy Republican

>hatemongers who infest this board -- American would be so much

>better off if each and every one of them was thrown into the

>nearest river.

>

That is just a horrible statement and you should be ashamed. And to be truthful I sincerely doubt there are many "filthy Republican hatemongers" INFESTING a Gay forum. Are you afraid of different opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! Before the debates started, all the Bush sheeple were crowing about his 12 point lead in the polls. Now that the debates are over and Bush has proven to millions on public tv what a clueless, drooling idiot he is, he is now dead even in the polls. Bush and his sheeple are running scared and desperately latching onto any splinter of driftwood to keep from drowning.

 

Nothing that Kerry said in reference to Mary Cheyney was untrue, slanderous or even remotely inappropriate. It is all just a desperate attempt by the Bush machine to stir up controversy, where none exists, to try to regain some of the substantial real estate, that GWB lost in the debates.

 

And even more disgusting, is that the very people who proposed an amendment to the law of the land embodied by the Constitution, to legally deny basic human rights to gays, is using so called "gay slander" as that life-saver splinter! I feel sorry for Mary, who is being used by a bitch like her mother and father, as a political tool.

 

Let it go people, as all the protests and reactions, only play into that very desperate ploy. Ignore it, don't let the Bushies use us yet again, to advance their policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...