LawTalkers - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630)

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Mickey's take on this seems logical:

When I criticized John Edwards for gratuitously mentioning Dick Cheney's gay daughter, I got lots of email suggesting that Edwards was simply being nice. Sorry, that won't fly after Kerry bizarrely, needlessly and explicitly raised the subject again ("I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, ....") There must be some Machiavellian strategy behind the Democratic urge to keep bringing this up--most likely it's a poll-tested attempt to cost Bush and Cheney the votes of demographic groups (like Reagan Dems, or fundamentalists) who are hostile to homosexuality or gay culture or who just don't want to have to think about it. Or maybe Kerry was just trying to throw Bush off stride. In either case, the fake embrace was even creepier coming from Kerry than it was coming from Edwards--Edwards had at least been debating Cheney at the time. After the debate, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said Cheney's daughter was "fair game." Fair game? Who was being attacked? (It was supposed to be a discussion of whether homosexuality is a "choice" or innate. Bush had said he didn't know.) ... P.S.: If Kerry was being Machiavellian, he went way too far in the culturally liberal direction by talking about friends who "finally sort of broke out"--e.g. came out. (With the support of their wives!) Why "finally"? Is liberation from sexual repression a priority item for Kerry's first term? Of course not, but Kerry's language can't have made socially conservative voters comfortable--negating the effect of the Cheney mention, if that was supposed to make them uncomfortable with Bush. ... Update: Here's some evidence (in a NYT "undecided" panel) of Kerry's Mary Cheney mention backfiring ("a low blow"). ... More: Kerry was puncturing the "hypocrisy" of Bush's position, as some Kerry defenders claim, only if the sole reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. I support the idea of experimenting with gay marriage, but surely it's possible to be a non-bigot and be reluctant to immediately tinker with such a venerable social institution (even if modern monogamous marriage is itself a tinkering with the much longer-standing human tradition of polygyny). Once you admit this possibility of non-bigoted reluctance, then Kerry's move looks less like hypocrisy-puncturing and more like a straight appeal to homophobia. As such, it does no credit to Kerry. ... Perilous race analogy: What if Kerry were debating a conservative on affirmative action, and that conservative had a black wife, and Kerry gratuitously brought that up in an attempt to cost his opponent the racist vote? Would Andrew Sullivan approve? I don't think so. ...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108107/

I would point out that if this is a senstive topic for Mary, raising it on an internet bulletin board is not a particularly sensitive thing to do. And if it has a negative impact on Bush's base, making an issue of it is also not wise politically.

But neither of those things is the case, are they?

My other question: what the hell was Bush's aide thinking when he did this: LINK TO AP STORY

He's managed to effectively concede Kerry claims of "three-peat" just before a series of ads running Bush denying his OBL quote right after running the OBL quote - it looks like the Momentum continues!

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
commedian

commedian

Busted. Twice.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
. . . .it looks like the Momentum continues!

A sled has momentum.

Quote:

dtb
You mean the way Chelsea Clinton was deserving of her privacy? You mean the way Teresa Heinz Kerry is deserving of her privacy? Oh, it only works one way? I see.

A bit late to this game, but why the hell would Zsa Zsa be deserving of any privacy??

She is actively on the stump for her husband, making absurd statements at every turn?

I've always noted that Chelsea was an unfair target (and for the most part, the media kept their hands off her for years).

Mary Cheney is neither on the stump - and unlike even Chelsea - never made an appearance at the Convention.

There is no comparison here.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A bit late to this game, but why the hell would Zsa Zsa be deserving of any privacy??

She is actively on the stump for her husband, making absurd statements at every turn?

I've always noted that Chelsea was an unfair target (and for the most part, the media kept their hands off her for years).

Mary Cheney is neither on the stump - and unlike even Chelsea - never made an appearance at the Convention.

There is no comparison here.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

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.

Quote:

Lie. She was indeed at the convention -- but not allowed on the stage when the family members all came up. Funny that.

She is a B/C campaign operative; used to show how "compassionate" the republican party is. It is absolute horseshit to suggest she's not part of the campaign.

The media kept their hands off Chelsea Clinton for years? Are you kidding me?

Furthermore, Hank's statement that Mary Cheney should be off limits was made on the basis that "she isn't running for anything", which, going by that standard, means THK should be off limits as well. But you and he seem to think she should be an issue in the campaign.

Wasn't it you crying the crocodile tears the other day about how someone called a rep. a name? Atticus, a little web-fu help please?

AARGH. I did it again. "Edit" not "Quote"!!

Apologies.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Busted. Twice.

I knew that didn't look right.

Damn.

(Sort of like the time I had a mental block when trying to spell the word "partial" -- I kept writing "parshal/parshall" knowing neither was right, but unable to come up with the right spelling. There's more to this HILARIOUS story, but I think I'll stop now.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

Cool. However, the only candidate that agrees with what Sullivan said is Nader. He'll be so happy with the new endorsement.

Quote:

dtb
Lie. She was indeed at the convention -- but not allowed on the stage when the family members all came up. Funny that.

What a load of bunk. Cite please.

She - by her own admission - chose not to participate.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What a load of bunk. Cite please.

She - by her own admission - chose not to participate.

Ah, yes. Funny that.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What a load of bunk. Cite please.

She - by her own admission - chose not to participate.

Was she there or was she not there?** (Do you mean to say that "make an appearance" means "make a speech"?)

Do you deny too that she works on the campaign?

**Here's a hint:

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories...marycheney.jpg

and a link to the article.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, yes. Funny that.

W supports a woman's right to chose.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
W supports a woman's right to chose.

Funny, I thought that was predicated on a privacy right.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Chelsea, as a junior high kid, was treated to cruel and calculated remarks about her looks.

By Dole? Bush I? Quayle? Who? How is this parallel?