Why exactly are the Cheney’s angry about Kerry mentioning their lesbian daughter? Is there any reason other than they are ashamed of her? Mary Cheney has been quite open with the public about her sexuality. It is not like Kerry outed her or claimed she was doing anything wrong. Why are the Cheneys mad?
Perhaps because their political opponent brought up their personal family business?
I dunno.
I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s a fact, she is a lesbian. Perhaps some people are offended by facts. I love them.
If Mary C was the head of an organization called “Lesbians for Bush” (no pun intended 
), then it would be fair fair game for Kerry and Edwards to bring it up. However, she’s not, and bringing up a personal aspect of your opponent’s family liek this is truly classless.
Imagine the indignation if the roles were reversed and Bush brought up Kerry’s lesbian daughter.
Not that there’s anything wrong with it!
Here is a link by the way. I am not sure exactly why they are angry…Cheney did not appear at all angry when Edwards mentioned it and actually thanked him for his kind remarks. Admittedly, Edwards’ mention of it somehow seemed more relevant and a little less ackward than Kerry’s. But, my guess that part of their “anger” may just be for politics…to make hay over it. Admittedly, Kerry’s mention of it may also have been political although I am not really sure I could coherently explain how.
So if this is so bad what about mentioning the candidates’ strong wives? That involves their personal lives but nobody seems to care.
I read or heard somewhere that some saw it as a cheap shot way of reminding homophobic voters that the Cheneys must have done something wrong, not raising their daughter to be a good right-winger who chooses Bible-sanctioned heterosexuality.
Pure pixiedust. Hell, they stood there and talked about each others wives, and thier own. Kerry didn’t say anything perjorative about lesbianism or lesbians, nor did he imply any such thing. Would the Cheney’s have been shocked about mentioning thier grandchildren, thus outing thier other daughter as a breeder? If not, then doesn’t their outrage imply that the very fact of lesbianism is shameful?
From what little I have seen of the VP I suspect that he is angry most of the time. If it’s not one thing it’s another. But, yea, the comment about the VP’s daughter was a cheap shot. However when you are dealing with a snarky little light weight who thinks cheap shots that equate procedural votes with substance and deliberately misrepresents what you said to his face and in a public forum not two weeks before (global test, anyone)are fair comment and who denies his own public comments(unconcerned about Ben Laden) and who spends 90 minutes shucking, jiving, smerking and tittering it is hard to restrain the impulse not to slap a forearm up against his helmet after the whistle blows. Not good form but, damn, it’s tempting to just give him a shot. If nothing else to remind him that you are still here and that you are capable of responding in kind.
Political grandstanding from the Cheneys, nothing more.
“You can’t mention our daughter’s name in your speeches, only we can!”
All Kerry said was that, basically, Mary Cheney is a lesbian. She didn’t choose it, that’s who she is. And that she deserves basic human rights, like civil unions.
I think he was trying to point out to Bush and the homophobes that gays aren’t some group of monsters. They can be anyone-people we know and care about.
And quite frankly, after all the crap that’s said about Teresa Heinz Kerry, this was pretty mild. Cream cheese.
And for the right wing fanatics (Note-I’m only talking about the Dittohead types) to crow about it, I have two words: Chelsea Clinton.
Mace, it tries to show that the Cheneys are hypocrites if they keep supporting Bush’s actions regarding gay marriage, even as if they are not so inclined to favor a gay marriage ban in light of their daughter’s relatively happy relationship. People do tend to be irked at being implied, or being called outright, that they are hypocrites.
Kerry also brought up ‘family values’ along with Cheney’s daughter, bringing to the fore a conflict that many families face regarding their gay children. Some would understandably like to keep this conflict private. However, since some ultra-conservative parents would indeed shun the child for being gay, it becomes an indirect dig on the ‘compassionate conservative’ mantra on what ‘family values’ really mean to them.
Also, it can remind some people, especially in Illinois, of Alan Keyes’ fire and brimstone condemnation of Cheney’s daughter. Knowing Cheney, he most likely pimp-slapped Alan over that in private. So Cheney probably thinks that Kerry bringing his daughter up as a debate talking poiint is superfluous at best.
Cheney also probably thought that when he went ‘nyaah’ to the gay wedding ban amendment, and the amendment didn’t pass Congress, that his daughter would not be talked about, much less be a debate point.
You really mean to tell me that you people think that Kerry brought up Cheney’s daughter innocently? It was done for the reasons that Revtim indicated. The Cheney’s made the mistake of commenting about it which implies it is shameful and brings more attention to it.
I disagree. The VP can’t possibly agree with the Prez on everything, so unless you are saying that the VP should resign as soon as he disagrees with the Prez on something, then calling him a hypocrite is meaningless. It’s an imppossible test that no one could pass.
It’s the VP’s job to support the Prez. Sure he can try to influence the Prez, but at the end of the day he has to toe the line set by his boss.
Respectfully, I’d like to ask the board’s resident gays and lesbians whether they took offense at either Edwards of Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation.
I thought in both cases it was a little ham-handed, but nothing to take great offense at, but then I’m neither gay nor Republican.
I don’t know if I was included in that, but I certainly don’t think it was “innocent”. Kerry knew full well what he was doing. Reminding Bush that this isn’t just some abstract issue, but it’s gonna hit home for some people.
I’m sorry, I don’t consider it “guilty” or “ham-handed” to mention something that you don’t consider shameful, even if you know other people consider it so. It’s their problem, and for them to make an issue out of it, implying it was impolite not to support and confirm their prejudices, is political posturing.
I don’t think my personal life is shameful, but I wouldn’t necessarily want it discussed as a rhetorical point in front of 60 million people just because of my fathers job.
So you had no problem with that, then? Or did you think (as any fair-minded person did) that it was cheap and ugly? Tu quoque.
What if she is actively working for BC04? What if previously she had handled Gay/Lesbian outreach for Coors? Would these have made her sufficiently the Gay/Lesbian friendly face for BC04?
Is the reaction of the Cheney’s to previous commentary (more critical perhaps) on their daughter’s orientation from individuals on the right material?