Try this.
Jane Doe is the Director of Vice Presidential Operations for Bush-Cheney 2004, is publicly gay, but she’s not the VP’s daughter.
John Kerry use Jane Doe to illustrate how he understands that homosexuality is not a choice.
Is that alright? If yes, then explain how by being the VP’s daughter but having the same public campaign role makes this a “low blow.”
Why is this even in the “low blow” territory? Is acknowledging that homosexuality != choice something to be ashamed of?
I wasn’t. I was responding to the person who did, and, like you, trying to show why his analogy was inappropriate.
My bad. Darn nested quotes. :smack:
No, of course not. Is Mary Cheney the poster child for homosexuality? He made the point about homosexuality fine without bringing her into it.
There are a whole lot of people helping both people’s campaigns. That doesn’t make them fair game. I’m quite sure that Mary wasn’t insulted. There was nothing insulting about the mention. I just don’t think Kerry needed it to score any debate or rhetorical points. Edwards I can see, I think it was more relevant there. Kerry maybe even wanted to get a dig in at the dissonance in his opponents… but that’s already been done by the Edwards debate.
She’s quite capable of speaking out against her father or Bush if she felt like it. I guess that’s where I stand.
Um, it seems to me that her job at Coor’s, her subsequent positions in the Repblican Party and current work put her in the political arena. ( Admitedly, I understand the milder version of the “invisible line” argument. )
I realized after I posted it that someone would phrase it that way. No, not asinine and cruel; but unneccessarily personal.
Kerry undeniably has people who he knows better and are better-known public figures than Mary Cheney: Barney Frank being the obvious one. I doubt Kerry’s even met the woman.
So if she felt like speaking about her homosexuality, specifically as it pertains to her father’s and Bush’s campaign, she could have, yeah? Did I miss where Mary Cheney became a representive of homosexuality? Does she have some effect on policy that makes her open to criticism the same way Bush or Cheney is? It was just as bad when it was done to Clinton’s daughter.
I just think he made a mistake. I still respect his positions. I think he’s right on many positions(except he should support gay marriage). I fully intend to vote for him. But it just seemed kind of low.
Now, the Cheneys’ reaction, at least Mrs Cheney, certainly seem to belie a kind of embarassment about the situation. “Good god, don’t say it out loud!” But that’s their bag. And Mary’s.
In the same debate, Bush used his opponent’s wife to illustrate how everyone should support Bush’s position on abstinence.
Shame on Bush for using his opponent’s *family * to score a political point.
Sure, because presidents’ wives (and presidents-to-be, as the case may be) have never been known for their politics or public nature (or both). Come on. Nancy? Eleanor? Hillary? Jackie?
When she joined the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition.
So let’s turn this around, since you don’t feel she deserves to be more behind-the-scenes. What did Kerry get out of the mention? What purpose did it serve that could only be made by bringing her up?
That was for you, Rillian. Sorry. I usually try to quote or mention who I’m talking to.
So wives can be used, but not children. What about cousins, parents, nephews/nieces?
Of course there is a line. It’s a line that protects/respects a person’s privacy. Mary Cheney is not privately gay. She is a campaign official. The Vice President used her homosexuality as an example at one of his town halls. The Vice President thanked Senator Edwards for his kind comments about his daughter during a nationally televised debate.
If Mary isn’t bothered by the comment, why should anyone else be?
As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread:
He could have used other examples. He could have mentioned U.S. Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA). He could have mentioned Barney Frank (D-MA). He could have mentioned a celebrity.
Instead he, in a respectful fasion, used an example that showed Bush that he was denying the basic truth about his own VP’s daughter - that homosexuality is not a choice and that every American deserves equal justice under the law - regardless of sexual orientation.
Whoa, let’s back of the absolutism here. I don’t think any less of him for it. I just don’t think it was an appropriate comment. I don’t swear in fine restaraunts but I wouldn’t think less of someone who did it. Kerry can bring her up all day. He can base his campaign around her. What do I care? I just don’t think it was a proper thing to do. If he asked me if he should bring her up, I’d say “No.” That’s as far as it goes.
It’s his daughter!
Frankly, I think he was just being polite.
Some things I frown upon simply because I picture a civil society not behaving a certain way, not because there is demonstratable emotional or physical harm done. It’s like traffic laws. There’s no reason why we drive on the right and not the left; it isn’t like driving on the left is a known carcinogen. But we just don’t do it. And you’ll get a ticket for it whether you hit someone or not. I see something like this as an example of something analogous, though, as I qualified above, I wouldn’t use absolutist terms. Kerry brought her up to support his position that gays shouldn’t be forbidden from having marriage rights (barring his semantic quibble). If she wanted to do that, she could. She isn’t. She’s supporting the administration that works against that end. Is she picking her battles? Is she supporting dad for selfish reasons? Is that something Kerry can answer?
She’s not a wronged party. But she’s clearly capable of presenting her own opinions on the matter without Kerry putting words in her mouth. She’s not his opponent, nor does she represent his opponent, nor does she have any impact on policy (apparently). Now, hey, if she was up for a cabinet position or some other kind of governmental nepotism, fire away. I don’t really see that.
It is hypocritical, I agree. It is a load of crap, and it makes me disgusted with Cheney even more than I already have been. But that family values line has been a load of BS since it became popular. I don’t give a shit how Cheney treats his daughter, to tell you the truth, if I thought he could lead the country in a way I supported.
Eris
---- So let’s turn this around, since you don’t feel she deserves to be more behind-the-scenes. What did Kerry get out of the mention? What purpose did it serve that could only be made by bringing her up?
(I’ll pretend this was for me. 
) That’s what confused me: she’s a PR flack and professional liason to the gay/lesbian community! Admittedly, her current job description involves more background work, but Jeez, look at that resume!
Whether Kerry was wise to bring it up is another issue. While Mary Cheney certainly knows her resume, I doubt whether most viewers did. (Hm. On preview, I’m not sure our POV differs that much. Oh well.)
I’m not. I was trying to think of an example of “personal information that, while it may be publicly known, is nonetheless sensitive.”
Much like Erislover points out, I tend to think it’s one thing for a person to talk about themselves, another for someone else to say it. The issue is one of taste (which, I realize, some think has no place in politics.)
Commasense, I’ll just say I think you have thicker skin than most people.
Finally, it’s relevant that Kerry has said his position on gay marriage is the same as the president’s. I mean, I guess you can argue that Bush/Cheney are hypocrites, but that it’s okay for Kerry to oppose it becuase his daughters aren’t gay … but that seems a pretty weird way to think. I prefer to just say they’re both wrong.
Cheney can say whatever he wants about his family (providing that it’s not offensive or too personal for his family member’s sensibilities, which I’m assuming it isn’t), but nobody else can. See how that works? It’s just how it is.
I have repeatedly said that I am not all riled up about this and I am not outraged. I’m just explaining it how I see it. You don’t bring up family—at least, other people’s family.
It’s a visceral thing. I can talk about my family if I choose to, on my terms, but if my political or idealogical opponent wants to spring me with some (benign or otherwise) detail about my family, that’s crossed a line. Is it a huge deal? Depends on what is said and the reason it is said. In Kerry’s case, it wasn’t really down and dirty—he just stated something that many people know and that the family member in question isn’t ashamed about.
But he still brought up his opponent’s family, unsolicited, and that crossed that invisible line.
Don’t see it yourself? Doesn’t matter. In many people’s minds (including mine), it’s just there. But once again, I am not outraged about Kerry doing it, I don’t think he’s a horrible man for doing it. But it would have been better if he hadn’t, just because some of us have that visceral reaction towards it.
[New emphasis] Let me clarify before I get nailed on this. I mean she doesn’t represent the president in some governmental sense. She’s not a part of his politics. She ostensibly supports them, but I don’t think that makes one open game, either.