So I assume all of you who are outraged that Kerry dared to bring up Cheney’s family members are equally outraged about how Republicans tried to make an issue of Kerry’s wife being rich?
Didn’t think so. This issue is bogus. The Cheneys are only whining about it because Bush fucked up so badly in all three debates and they don’t want that to be the topic of discussion this weekend on the news programs.
I already covered the difference from my perspective, but thanks. And “outrage” is a bit much, I don’t really see anyone in this thread being “outraged”. Rather we seem to have found it in poor taste, not some citable offense.
Thanks, though.
Who said anything about outrage? And Bush didn’t mention THK being rich in the debate. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I’ve got a question for Kerry supporters: Do you think it helps or hurts Kerry that this issue is still a big news item? I don’t see how it helps him, and that’s the main reason I think he should appologize-- to get it off the front page.
No, I didn’t mean you were gay. [seinfeld]Not that there’s anything wrong with it![/seinfeld]
Is it really helping Bush/Cheney? If homosexuality is such a hot-button topic with their base, every minute it’s in the news reinforces the Bush/Cheney = gay formula.
It hurts for the exact reason you mention: it distracts. But I don’t think he should apologize, as I don’t think he did anything wrong. It just seemed a little tasteless to me, that’s all.
God, not only is FOX still playing this. They can’t handle Kerry on issues, so they have to get riled up in their own hypocrisy.
It won’t make them switch their vote to Kerry. But listen to Cheney’s wife to see what this is about. This isn’t about homosexuality. They’re making Kerry out to be an ill mannered boob-- a “bad man” to use her words. Its about getting the undecideds to not vote for someone because they don’t feel good about that person, as a person. They’re trying to get the moms and dads out there to be pissed at Kerry, and it’s detracting from a discussion of the real issues. That helps Bush.
[QUOTE=erislover]
It hurts for the exact reason you mention: it distracts. But I don’t think he should apologize, as I don’t think he did anything wrong. It just seemed a little tasteless to me, that’s all.[/QUOTE
It’s the only way to get people to stop talking about it.
Putting aside the actual level of your disapproval, whether it be outrage or mild rebuke, the comparison remains. You did post to the thread.
Why the shitstorm about the inappropriateness of Kerry’s comment yet no criticism at all of trying to zing Kerry by saying his wife is rich? The same line has been crossed, but the reaction is worlds apart. And I’m just not buying the fact that it was said during a debate makes any real difference. The substance of the comments is the same.
I already answered this in one way. First wives, and prospective first wives, have traditionally been public figures. I gave such commonplace examples as Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie O, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary Clinton. I find that to be a qualitative difference, not a quantitative one.
Actually, I believe we call them the “first lady”. :smack:
In Saudi Arabia?
My predictions.
This whole talking point (“we’re schocked! shocked! that someone would say Lesbian!”) is being played up for two purposes:
The purpose we’re seeing now is that it distracts from Bush’s debate performance, in particular the devastating points for Bush’s camp: Kerry won all three debates, and Bush made a particularly embarrassing lie in debate 3 (“I never said I wasn’t worred about Bin Ladin”).
The More important purpose is so that, during the next three weeks, BC04 can let loose with the most underhanded, personal attacks imaginable on Kerry. And then point to this incident and be able to say “Kerry started it!”.
Classic Rove.
After further thought, please let me amend point #2:
This talking point is perhaps insulating the BC04 campaign against charges of neanderthalism when they attack someone in Kerry’s family in the next 3 weeks. THK is an obvious target, but perhaps Kerry’s kids are in for some grief. When proof is raised that JFK’s daughter is, was a Taliban supporter in the 8th grade (NOTE: this is a fictitious example), any calls of “jeez, keep the kid out of the campaign” will be met with discussion of this incident.
This wasn’t addressed to me, but I have an answer. I assumed the reason that both Edwards and Kerry brought it up was to highlight the fact that Cheney and Bush are not in agreement on the issue. By pointing out that Cheney has a gay daughter who he wholeheartedly supports, they showed the un-reasonableness of Bush’s position by contrasting it with the more reasonable position of his running-mate. Cheney must surely be in a moral quandary about having to back Bush’s political platform, while at the same time, as a father, wanting his daughter to be happy. Edwards did it a little more subtly though. By complimenting Cheney on his support of his daughter (the implication being that therefore Cheney must support gay rights), he made the unstated point that Bush is too rigid on the issue, but without expressing it in a negative way. I thought it was rather ingenious, to tell you the truth. But it would only work with Cheney’s daughter, not any other public figure, because it capitalizes on the conflict between Cheney’s and Bush’s views.
Right, blowero… but Edwards made that point in a more meaningful context, around which no shitstorm ensued. Kerry tried to capture it and use it again… well, it just isn’t the same the second time around, is it?
I can’t even believe that there is anyone serious on the other side of this.
I mean, their fucking spin point is that Kerry ATTACKED Cheney’s daughter, which in no universe is true. As Will Saletan was finally said,
http://slate.com/id/2108251/
at some point even journalists just can’t stay silent anymore: this administration lies so much and so blatantly right in the face of people that they know know they’re lying that there can be no such thing as sincere outrage from them anymore.
Here’s Tucker Carlson describing the strange form of mental illness that people like Sam Stone wants to head up our future as a nation:
Of course, according to one of Bush’s aides, reality is no longer ours anymore. It belongs to Bush and his people:
-from this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine
At this point, defending Bush as a decent guy with solid values is just a way of destroying your own credibility.
I’ll agree that Kerry’s was a little more ham-handed, but still, was it really that awful? I think his point was a valid one; gay people don’t choose to be gay. Bush says he “doesn’t know” if they do. Well, let’s think about that. If Bush “doesn’t know”; that means he thinks it at least possible that his own running-mate’s daughter chose to be gay. Kind of a ridiculous position to hold, don’t you think? So if Kerry hadn’t used her as his example, he would be leaving potential voters free to think, “Oh, well it’s just those depraved liberals who are choosing to be gay.” But using Cheney’s daughter as the example changes the equation. So sure, Edwards did it better, but Kerry - not so horrible.
how come everyone (not the people on this board but the media and entire US) is more concerned with whether he should of mentioned it, than whether what he stated was actually true? does Mary Cheney think homosexuality is a choice? if it’s true, what does it matter if it’s unappropriate or not politically correct? if bush said something non-P.C. i’m sure it would show his leadership, decisiveness, how he sticks to his own beliefs, and how he makes difficult decisions based on what is good for the country not based on popular opinion.
:smack: