This is in response to the issue being raised by some regarding Dick Cheney’s daughter. I’m not sure I understand the “issue”, and think it is likely nothing more than an attempt to stir up some controversy on a “hot button” issue.
So let’s put it differently. Would you change your vote for a candidate based on the knowledge that the candidate has a child who was/is a serial killer? A parent?
A child, maybe.
A parent, no.
If a candidate has a child who is a serial killer it may indicate some fault in the way the candidate raised his/her children. This could range from the parent not being negligent at all (the kid was a fine upstanding citizen until 30 and then WHAMMO- out of the blue he killed 20 people) to a serious defect in the candidate him/herself (the kid was raised to believe that [stick in your least favorite racial/ethnic/religious group here] are subhuman).
If the candidates parent was a killer however, and s/he still overcame it to become a model citizen, I say “All the more power to them.”
Zev Steinhardt
Why do you think homosexuality is equivalent to being a serial killer?
Haven’t you seen Cruising goboy? Or Silence of the Lambs?
I don’t think Izzy was comparing them (although he may correct me on that point). I think he was mearly taking an example and making an extreme case of it.
In response to the actual OP question raised. Yes I would change it if their child was. If it was the parent, I would really have to look at the circumstances. If the child defended said murders by the parent, I wouldn’t vote for them.
goboy,
I was not comparing homosexuality to being a serial killer. Actually, kind of the opposite. I wanted raise the issue of how much a person’s family counts in assessing them without getting involved in issues of whether they are right or wrong. So I chose serial killers - surely a morally unambigous issue.
Personally, it would not make a diffrence to me at all, though it might make me feel a bit funny. (I don’t think parenting skills are important for public policy).
But then, that’s it’s no longer based solely on the candidate’s relation, which is, I believe, IzzyR’s question.
Zev Steinhardt
I think that in some ways, sins of the child can be indicative of sins of the father. A child who is known as a hellion, or who has had serious trouble with the law, may reflect a parent who had serious defects in some way or another. Especially if it turns out that the child was shielded from repercussions by the father.
Likewise, most serial killers are the products of extremely abusive environments, usually sexually abusive, occasionally physically and emotionally abusive. If someone has raised a child who turns out to be a serial killer, it raises- for me, at least- serious questions as to whether that parent was abusive, or willing to ignore the abuse of others.
As for the real current situation- I think it makes no bearing upon Dick Cheney that one of his daughters is a lesbian; but then, I don’t believe that homosexuality is a deviancy, and I believe that it’s a hard-wired trait. In fact, I consider it honorable that Cheney removed himself from the Presidential race in '96 because his daughter was not yet ready to publicly come out of the closet (only her close friends and her family knew at that point) and Cheney didn’t want her- and her orientation- to be thrust into the limelight when she wasn’t ready for it.
The relevance I find in this situation is how Cheney reconciles his conservative positions on homosexuality with his daughter being gay.
Considering that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, Newt Gingrich has a gay sister, and Ronald Reagan has a daughter who posed for Playboy and is, I believe, bisexual, I think maybe the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party should reconsider their stance that it is the liberals and Democrats who are responsible for raising “perverts,” “deviants,” and whatever other sexual buzzwords they’ve created this week.
Gaderene said:
He doesn’t want his straight daughter to be able to serve in the military, either. That clear things up?
So I am assuming here thay you have a cote for when a conservative politician of considerable stature (Asst. Lt. Governer from Wyoming not withstanding) who has called a homosexual a “pervert”, “deviant”, etc. You cannot make this argument by assosciation either, just because GWB spoke at BJ-University, quite possibly not the most forward or socially liberal institutionsin America, does not mean that GWB necessarily endprses their views. Jesse Jackson probably at some time knew someone in the Black Panthers, that hardly means that he is pro-violence or that Clinton, the person who he seves as a religious advisor to, endorses the same thing.
Considering Cheney’s wife is in total denial about her daughter’s sexual orientation…
threemae, can you perhaps repost that first sentence in English, so I can possibly respond to it? I thought what I said was pretty clear, but I’ll break it up for you:
Get it?
Oh, shit, wait, I just re-read your post. OK, apparently “cote” mean “quote.” And, by asking me to produce a “cote” for a “conservative politician of considerable stature,” you’re asking me to provide cites for something I didn’t claim in the first place. No thanks. I don’t play the game of accepting words placed in my mouth by other people. If I wanted to, though, I bet I could come up with at least Jesse Helms. And Dick Armey once called Barney Frank “Barney Fag.”