NationStates Jolt Archive

In the 3rd Presidential debate and the VP debate, John Kerry and John Edwards both took an opportunity to bring up the topic of Dick Cheney's daughter. It was obvious that Cheney was somewhat irritated by Edwards' move when the two went head-to-head, and rightfully so. To speak in generic terms is fine. It crosses the line when you get into someone's private life without them bringing it up first. If Bush would have brought up Kerry's divorce in such a way as to use it against him, I'm sure Dems would be outraged. They would be justified in the feeling. I have respected the campaigns on both sides so far, but this tactic by Kerry/Edwards is just wrong. We all know campaigns will use quotes out of context, take cheap shots, spin half-truths, etc., and both sides have done it this year. However, getting that personal with an opponent when they haven't brought it up at the time is uncalled for. I realize Cheney has mentioned the subject before, but he hadn't said anything about it during his debate so Edwards shouldn't have. Edwards tried to disguise his attack as being nice and giving Cheney credit as a good father/family man, but it was obvious what he was doing. Unfortunately Kerry felt the need to go back to it again tonight. Totally classless in my opinion. Thoughts?

I sense an imminent flaming.... :eek:

Not so much.

I have to agree that it was a cheap shot meant no doubt to strengthen thier base while undermining the very gay-unfriendly base of the president and vice-president. It is something that is 'out there' (no pun intended), so it's not like they where talking out of school or anything-certainly not mailing people to tell them that McCain has an adopted black baby....but, yeah-it was a cheap shot that didn't seem all that neccisary.

Yes , well isn't the electing campaign one big pie throwing contest already?
At least from my perspective, so what's one more pie?

Keep in mind that Cheney and Bush are on the "Gay Marriage is evil" bandwagon, wich is the popular view of thier supporters, even though I have heard that Cheney supports gay marriage.
So, while a cheap shot, it was no cheaper than misleading the american public about Kerry's voting record by saying that he voted to raise taxes over 200 times, even though he voted to cut taxes 600 times.

Was it in poor taste to bring it up?
I dont think so, its an issue, considering that Cheney is outwardly anyway, against gay marriage.

Its meant to make you think.
BUT...its about the lowest blow the Kerry team made this year.
Bush has made far worse.

Well, she is a lesbian ~ I don't see how saying it would be in any worse taste than saying Bush's daughters are twins.

So, while a cheap shot, it was no cheaper than misleading the american public about Kerry's voting record by saying that he voted to raise taxes over 200 times, even though he voted to cut taxes 600 times.

I disagree. Kerry's Senate record is all in the public eye. Feel free to look up anything he has (or, often in his case, hasn't) voted on. Kerry is a public figure. Kerry is running for office, his private life isn't. Same should go for Cheney and his family. If he doesn't bring it up, don't address it. What if Bush would have brought Kerry's divorce in the debate, then followed it up by talking about the reports that John and Teresa slept in different hotel rooms earlier in the campaign because they had a late night squabble? Even if the topic was family values, Bush would have been in the wrong for crossing the line. That's what Kerry and Edwards have done, crossed the line. Unfortunately it seems like day by day this country gets closer to losing all sense of decency and presidential candidates using highly personal issues as a weapon is now acceptable.

Well, she is a lesbian ~ I don't see how saying it would be in any worse taste than saying Bush's daughters are twins.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this and assume you a.) didn't think it through, or b.) were making a poor attempt at humor.

I would hope that most people can see the difference between being a twin and being gay. But, if there was an issue over twins' rights and if half the country had issues with being a twin, if the Bush family didn't want to talk about it then I would expect others to respect that. But obviously being a twin doesn't have the same elements as being a lesbian.

Now, if Kerry/Edwards want to discuss the gay/lesbian issue, fine. They could even do so with Cheney in general terms. But to take the offensive and bring up, on a personal level, Cheney's daughter, that's wrong. At issue isn't "Cheney's daughter's rights," it's gay/lesbian rights. It's a much more general issue.

When does the election take place? (just wondering because I've not been following it closely)

Must we endlessly talk about 2 useless polititians?

I already know that no matter which one you elect they will still be totally useless. Let's face it. All polititians go corrupt and start making laws to suit their own purposes.

I am sick and tired of polititians making empty promises and giving us nothing, except war and pain. If I were in charge, I would rule alone, with a cold hearted Iron fist. Death for any violation in the law. Money will not drive me. I seek not material wealth... only power... total power.

Fear will keep the people in line-it is the only way... Stop listening to these fools, and start thinking of a new world order.

-The TIN Man, Future world dictator.

When does the election take place? (just wondering because I've not been following it closely)

What election? :p

For those of us who live more or less on the other side of the planet, or at least the Atlantic ocean, and aren't as likely to watch presidential debates of some other country when they're aired here at 3am... what was said, anyway?

For those of us who live more or less on the other side of the planet, or at least the Atlantic ocean, and aren't as likely to watch presidential debates of some other country when they're aired here at 3am... what was said, anyway?

see for yourself
http://c-span.org/

Perhaps it was a cheap shot (i didn't felt it like that when i first heard it, but while i read it here, i must say private life is drawing attention from the real problem. But sois any flame though...). Though i found Bush his response on the issue: "[...] freedom very important blablabla [...] must protect christian moral values [...]" not very good either. You see, Kerry response to that was in the beginning the same. However, then he said that he did not want to push his morals upon others. Now that is freedom as Kant observed when he wrote his Kantian Ethics. That's not saying you hold up freedom very high and pushing your beliefs upon others; that's saying "i'd prefer it like this, but i can't dictate that".

What election? :p

The US Elections are on Tuesday, the 2nd of November this year.

As for your post, I'm hoping you just don't live in the US... :)

[QUOTE=Indianajones]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this and assume you a.) didn't think it through, or b.) were making a poor attempt at humor.

I would hope that most people can see the difference between being a twin and being gay.QUOTE]
Not really. You are what you are. Facts are facts. If Kerry had said she was gay and she wasn't, then you could complain.

What election? :p

Unintentionally insightful comment, there. Maybe there is no election and you're just watching a play. It's been decided for years. :p

What election? :p
I was asking the question seriously.
Even google can't help me. There are billions of web sites talking about the debate and stuff, they talk about the US elections, which are so important and everything. I can't find the fucking date of those fucking elections.

November the 2nd, 2004.

Thanks man.
So I know when things will be back to normal again.

So I know when things will be back to normal again.

I could say several things...but I won't because I know what you mean.

When Kerry is elected, we'll be back to a Presidential blowjob being the biggest worry about our president.

It's already been brought before the public. It was well known long before the debates. I think it illustrates the hyprocrisy of this administration. I thought Cheney came out and didn't support the ammendment ban. It's just another chip in the armor of an adminstration that ran on morals and accountability. Just like the Office of Accountability found that they have broken the law in their campaign.
Violation of Federal Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html?ei=5070&en=5844b12f07fa2119&ex=1097899200&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1097755709-UJR6ZdfiCwAwRdatNVTOCA)
"
White House's Medicare Videos Are Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: May 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 19 - The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.

The agency said the videos were a form of "covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, broadcast by at least 40 television stations in 33 markets. The agency also expressed some concern about the content of the videos, but based its ruling on the lack of disclosure."
That's just one example of many.

When Kerry is elected, we'll be back to a Presidential blowjob being the biggest worry about our president.
I think we should ammend the Constitution so that the President
must receive daily blowjobs. He is after all, the leader of the free world.

If it was a cheap shot then I'm confused, Dick Cheney thanked Edwards for the comments about his gay daughter and Lynn Cheney thinks Kerry is "not a good man" for basically the same comments.. Perhaps it's a political tactic by a very worried Republican party?

I think we should ammend the Constitution so that the President
must receive daily blowjobs. He is after all, the leader of the free world.

I concur.

If someone tried to say there was something wrong with your daughter and used it as an issue on National TV, would you not get up (election or no) and punch the guy?

Next on Jerry Springer: These two guys battle it out for the love of the Nation

If someone tried to say there was something wrong with your daughter and used it as an issue on National TV, would you not get up (election or no) and punch the guy?

Next on Jerry Springer: These two guys battle it out for the love of the Nation
no.

If someone tried to say there was something wrong with your daughter and used it as an issue on National TV, would you not get up (election or no) and punch the guy?

What is wrong with being gay? Edwards nor Kerry said there was. They were using her as an example. No one said there is any thing wrong with being gay except for Bush.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this and assume you a.) didn't think it through, or b.) were making a poor attempt at humor.

I would hope that most people can see the difference between being a twin and being gay. But, if there was an issue over twins' rights and if half the country had issues with being a twin, if the Bush family didn't want to talk about it then I would expect others to respect that. But obviously being a twin doesn't have the same elements as being a lesbian.

Now, if Kerry/Edwards want to discuss the gay/lesbian issue, fine. They could even do so with Cheney in general terms. But to take the offensive and bring up, on a personal level, Cheney's daughter, that's wrong. At issue isn't "Cheney's daughter's rights," it's gay/lesbian rights. It's a much more general issue.Sorry, but Cheney's daughter is out, and Cheney himself has made it an issue in this campaign previously. I didn't think Cheney looked bothered in the debate with Edwards when the subject came up--it was perhaps the moment when he looked closest to human in my opinion. And there was nothing cheap about Kerry's mention in the debate last ngiht either. Attitudes about rights for same-sex couples are fundamentally different between the two parties (and the Dems ought to be ashamed for not supporting same-sex marriage fully) and Kerry had an obligation to point out how this ought not be a partisan issue.

Kerry and Edwards pulled off a low blow with that. You dont bring a man's family to use against him in a political race, thats just wrong. I can GUARANTEE that if Bush started busting out with accusations about John Kerry's war record and using his past war record "personal" history against him liberals would be shitting bricks and eating it up like candy. But its ok for Kerry to use the VP's personal life and family against him and the president THATS OK right?

Bullshit, Marie Cheney was not part of the question, therefore she should NEVER have been part of the answer. Kerry is holding her hostage to the VP, imagine how she feels knowing that her sexuality is being used to damage her father's career? Kerry's a heartless bastard.

Kerry's a heartless bastard.

Now, now, is that any way to talk about your next president? :p

Now, now, is that any way to talk about your next president? :p

*clears throat* he's a heartless bastard. :mp5:

*clears throat* he's a heartless bastard. :mp5:

Oh, he's the heartless bastard for "outing" a nationally known lesbian? Meanwhile, the Republicans aren't bastards for espousing policy against their children and other gays?

Ah, typical "black is white" tactics

Oh, he's the heartless bastard for "outing" a nationally known lesbian? Meanwhile, the Republicans aren't bastards for espousing policy against their children and other gays?

Ah, typical "black is white" tactics
Let's be clear here--Kerry didn't "out" anyone. Mary Cheney outed herself a long time ago.

Does it really matter that much?
I'm sorry but from a foreigner perspective this all looks so unreal...
I had a hard time understanding all the fuss about Clinton blow job, now it's about cheney's little daughter...
Aren't political debates supposed to be about politics and politicians to do politics?
I really have a hard time understanding how the US public vote, how they change their mind on a blinking advert and all that stuff.

Let's be clear here--Kerry didn't "out" anyone. Mary Cheney outed herself a long time ago.

Exactly my point

being against gay marriage does not mean you are against gays. come on now lets use that thingy on your shoulders. my sister is gay and does not believe in gay marriage so i suppose that makes her anti-gay.

Kerry singled her out for political purposes. He singled her out to damage the VP and the President by using their own family against them, thats wrong, thats a low blow. Is Mary Cheney the only lesbian or gay that Kerry knows? I DOUBT it. He singled her out to damage the VP and the president without a doubt. Edwards did to.

Cheney never brought up his daughter in any of the debates, only in one speech did he bring up his daughter and it was to clarify his position and belief on gay marriage not for political gain. Kerry used her as a weapon against her own father, thats wrong, Mary Cheney was never part of the question, therefore she should never have been part of the answer.

So the campaign is getting dirty...meh.

Kerry singled her out for political purposes. He singled her out to damage the VP and the President by using their own family against them, thats wrong, thats a low blow. Is Mary Cheney the only lesbian or gay that Kerry knows? I DOUBT it. He singled her out to damage the VP and the president without a doubt. Edwards did to.

Cheney never brought up his daughter in any of the debates, only in one speech did he bring up his daughter and it was to clarify his position and belief on gay marriage not for political gain. Kerry used her as a weapon against her own father, thats wrong, Mary Cheney was never part of the question, therefore she should never have been part of the answer.

I doubt this will do any more damage to Bush and Cheney than they've already done to themselves.

Kerry and Edwards pulled off a low blow with that. You dont bring a man's family to use against him in a political race, thats just wrong. I can GUARANTEE that if Bush started busting out with accusations about John Kerry's war record and using his past war record "personal" history against him liberals would be shitting bricks and eating it up like candy. But its ok for Kerry to use the VP's personal life and family against him and the president THATS OK right?

Bullshit, Marie Cheney was not part of the question, therefore she should NEVER have been part of the answer. Kerry is holding her hostage to the VP, imagine how she feels knowing that her sexuality is being used to damage her father's career? Kerry's a heartless bastard.

The difference is that Mary Cheney is an openly homosexual woman, there's no argument about it. The moderator even brought it up in the 2nd debate, which means it was already opened up for public discourse.

Kerry's military career is hotly contested (though it shouldn't be, any reputable news source has pretty much debunked the SBVT.) No one knows the full truth.

Kerry and Edwards pulled off a low blow with that. You dont bring a man's family to use against him in a political race, thats just wrong. I can GUARANTEE that if Bush started busting out with accusations about John Kerry's war record and using his past war record "personal" history against him liberals would be shitting bricks and eating it up like candy.
umm, I'll think you'll find that the Bush campaign HAS brought up and supported accusations of Kerry's war record and used his past personal war record history against him. It was quite a big issue a few weeks back, remember?

Its not overly damaging, but its a low blow, its wrong, thats the point. Think about it, Mary Cheney has to live with the fact that her personal life is being used against her father, how is that fair to her? She has to live with that fact that her father's opponents are trying to damage her father's career by using her sexual conduct, what is that? BS. That was a crappy answer anyway, it didnt even answer the question asked.

if kerry wasn't running on his war record it wouldn't be an issue but since Kerry has been going "I am a vietnam vet therfore i am qualified to be president" since he is running on his record you are damn straight it is an issue.

This is not the real issue. The real issue is : which candidate had the coolest tie. This for sure indicates which candidate is the best suited for the job. If the tie is not cool, you will have to watch an uncool tie on TV for 4 years, all arounf the world, you know? I'd hate to have a president who doen't know how to choose his tie.

The difference is that Mary Cheney is an openly homosexual woman, there's no argument about it. The moderator even brought it up in the 2nd debate, which means it was already opened up for public discourse.

Kerry's military career is hotly contested (though it shouldn't be, any reputable news source has pretty much debunked the SBVT.) No one knows the full truth.

oh yeah CBS and ABC have proven to be real reputable recently :headbang:

umm, I'll think you'll find that the Bush campaign HAS brought up and supported accusations of Kerry's war record and used his past personal war record history against him. It was quite a big issue a few weeks back, remember?

No, Bush has always said that Kerry served honorably, the Swift Boat Vet's got their own agenda, i happen to believe Bush is wrong, i think Kerry DID betray his country, but thats a seperate issue. The Kerry campaign tried for the longest time to try and link Bush with the vets but couldnt pull up any hard evidence.

Its not overly damaging, but its a low blow, its wrong, thats the point. Think about it, Mary Cheney has to live with the fact that her personal life is being used against her father, how is that fair to her? She has to live with that fact that her father's opponents are trying to damage her father's career by using her sexual conduct, what is that? BS. That was a crappy answer anyway, it didnt even answer the question asked.

So what you're saying is, Dick Cheney is entitled to talk about his daughter being a lesbian but John Kerry isn't. How do you know this upsets her? Have you asked her? It certainly hasn't seemed to affect Dick Cheney.

Its not overly damaging, but its a low blow, its wrong, thats the point. Think about it, Mary Cheney has to live with the fact that her personal life is being used against her father, how is that fair to her? She has to live with that fact that her father's opponents are trying to damage her father's career by using her sexual conduct, what is that? BS. That was a crappy answer anyway, it didnt even answer the question asked.Poor girl.
Where can I send my donations?

oh yeah CBS and ABC have proven to be real reputable recently :headbang:

Good Point!

There are memos from one of them that they are firmly behind John Kerry and Dan Rather blew Credibility when he aired those false memos on 60 Minutes. Yep their credibility has been hit hard.

So what you're saying is, Dick Cheney is entitled to talk about his daughter being a lesbian but John Kerry isn't. How do you know this upsets her? Have you asked her? It certainly hasn't seemed to affect Dick Cheney.

I heard the audible gasp from the audience. I don't think they liked Kerry's answer to that question.

Even Mrs. Cheney, who was in MY HOMETOWN, called it a low and dirty trick.

Explain to me where he brought his daughter into things? Only time he brought up his daughter was when he was explaining what his position on gay marriage is and "why". His daughter is "why" he has his position on gay marriage, Mary is not a weapon. That was the ONLY time he ever brought her up, then Edwards brought it up at the VP debate to try and hurt Cheney on the gay marriage issue, he used her as a weapon against her father. Cheney's response was "thank you for your kind words about my family" and then stopped, the moderator even asked "is that it?" Cheney said "ya". Then Kerry brings her up again to use her as a weapon to try and break the link between Bush and Cheney, thats wrong.

I don't think that Kerry's bringing up Cheyney's daughter was a "subversive tactic" like some do. But I have to admit, when he did it I felt it wasn't really, I don't know. It wasn't NECESSARY, you know? I personally didn't think it was right. That's all.

I heard the audible gasp from the audience. I don't think they liked Kerry's answer to that question.

Even Mrs. Cheney, who was in MY HOMETOWN, called it a low and dirty trick.
cheney has exploited his lesbian daughter to soften his ultrareactionary image. once he uses her for political gain its opens season.

on a slight tangent, when did the republicans become the party of whiny sensitive guys. god all they do is piss and moan about how the democrats have hurt their or other peoples feelings. next thing you know they'll be demanding a group hug.... ickkkkkkkk.

I don't think that Kerry's bringing up Cheyney's daughter was a "subversive tactic" like some do. But I have to admit, when he did it I felt it wasn't really, I don't know. It wasn't NECESSARY, you know? I personally didn't think it was right. That's all.
i believe it isa completely legit point to bring up cheney's daughter, slgihtly tactless perhaps. but its a relevant point


now bush taking potshots at trial lawyers every 3 minutes is "subversive"

cheney has exploited his lesbian daughter to soften his ultrareactionary image. once he uses her for political gain its opens season.

How the hell has Cheney exploited his daughter? As far as I can see, Edwards and Kerry have been exploiting her. Even the Audience MOANED when Kerry said what he said. So tell me how Cheney has been exploiting her?

I'll tell you what is "classless". Constantly invoking 9-11 as a rationale for what you are and are not doing is classless. Using pictures of the disaster that killed nearly 3,000 people in your political commercials is classless. Lying on the stage about what you said two years ago is classless. Taking all of John Kerry's remarks out of context to make him look bad is classless. George Bush is classless!

Kerry singled her out for political purposes. He singled her out to damage the VP and the President by using their own family against them, thats wrong, thats a low blow. Is Mary Cheney the only lesbian or gay that Kerry knows? I DOUBT it. He singled her out to damage the VP and the president without a doubt. Edwards did to.

Cheney never brought up his daughter in any of the debates, only in one speech did he bring up his daughter and it was to clarify his position and belief on gay marriage not for political gain. Kerry used her as a weapon against her own father, thats wrong, Mary Cheney was never part of the question, therefore she should never have been part of the answer.

Cheney has talked about his daughter both on the campaign trail and in television interviews. He broke with Bush about the Constitutional amendment for marriage when polling showed that the American people were against amending the Constitution. Don't lie about why he did it.

When families begin stumping on the campaign trail, they become part of the campaign. Sorry, but that's the fact of the matter. And what the hell is wrong with all of you for thinking this is a low blow? Should Mary Cheney be forced to live in a closet for the remainder of her life because she's a lesbian? Her name should be excluded from the public because she doesn't live up to your standards? That's just pathetic. This reeks of the practice of several decades ago when disabled children were sent to state hospitals to live out their lives instead of being a negative blotch on families. Mary Cheney is not something to be hidden and neither Kerry nor Edwards said a single negative thing about her. Both talked in good terms about Cheney being a father to his daughter and if this is your idea of a negative attack, that's just partisan sickness.

Let me remind you of all the nasty things said about Chelsea Clinton during the 90's. Simply because she was Bill Clinton's daughter, she became the focus of brutal attacks on her by Republicans. Kerry and Edwards talked about the family strength of the Cheneys.

Where were all of you when Republicans were alleging that John Kerry shot himself in the leg to get a Purple Heart? Where were you when Republicans were saying that Kerry was associated with Jane Fonda? Where were you when Bob Dole was saying that Kerry's wounds in war were superficial and not worthy of anything? Where were you when Republicans were mocking a little girl injured that John Edwards defended during his time as a lawyer?

The venom in those attacks was sickening, yet Republicans stood idly by and began repeating these same things over and over again to anyone who would listen. Disgusting personal attacks. Yet when Kerry and Edwards talk about the strength of the Cheney family, you all cry about a low blow? Did you wait until Karl Rove told you to start whining about this, since you clearly can't say anything positive about Bush's performance?

Get some effing perspective on reality.

It's very different to talk about a presidential candidate and his/her history, which is all fair game, and talking about a candidate's family. Talking about Cheney's daughter isn't wronging Cheney. He made a choice to step into the political arena and take his lumps. Mary did not choose to become a subject of the campaign and it's she who was wronged. Everyone keeps talking about it being a low blow against Bush and Cheney, but really it was a low blow against Mary Cheney. It's dirty, dirty politics and both should be ashamed.

And before you accuse me of being partisan, I think the Bush camp was equally wrong for Olympic atheletes to further their agenda against the wishes of those atheletes.

I should note that, if I remember correctly, that Edwards didn't bring up Cheney's daughter in the VP debate. The moderator did, in asking a question about Cheney's position on gay marriage and Bush's amendment. Cheney got to answer first, basically stating that he didn't like the idea of an amendment and wanted the issue to be left up to the states, but he still backs the President in his decisions. Edwards, in his response, stated that he thought Cheney loved his daughter very much and that he had a good family, and that the President was using the amendment as a tool of division since it was unnecessary from a state's rights perspective. I don't see anything bad about this (provided I am remembering correctly). If you have a problem with Cheney's daughter being brought up in the VP debate, the only one to blame is the moderator.

As for Kerry's bringing her up in the third debate, I don't think that it was intended (directly) as a low blow political attack. I think he was trying to drive home a point to Bush that even he knows a gay person that he could have talked to and asked, so his "I don't know, but I know that my policy is right anyways" answer wasn't valid. Indirectly, yes, it was a political attack, in the sense of pointing out that the Republican "Family Values" ticket doesn't even bother talking to their own families about value-related policies that affect them, but it wasn't an attack on Cheney's daughter (or Cheney for that matter), just Bush and, perhaps, his religious conservative voter base. Was it out of line? Maybe a little. Was it insulting? I don't think so. Could he have done without it? Yeah, and he probably should have, but he didn't.

Just some thoughts. In light of the first part above, I think limiting the debate on this thread to the last presidential debate would perhaps be more constructive.

I'll tell you what is "classless". Constantly invoking 9-11 as a rationale for what you are and are not doing is classless. Using pictures of the disaster that killed nearly 3,000 people in your political commercials is classless. Lying on the stage about what you said two years ago is classless. Taking all of John Kerry's remarks out of context to make him look bad is classless. George Bush is classless!

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! The reason 9/11 still needs to be brought up is because all those people who said, "We'll never forget," have forgotten. 9/11 opened our eyes to terrorism and it became apparent that we had to take the fight to the terrorists. Notice, that was "terrorists," not just bin Laden. Iraq had terrorist training grounds, Hussein wanted people to believe he had WMD's (he succeeded) which could have gotten into the hands of the terrorists, etc. People have let 9/11 slip from their memory and want to kid themselves into thinking that we're living in a pre-9/11 world. We're not. That's why 9/11 needs to be brought up and put back into the minds of all those who have forgotten, or at least mentally lessened, the tragic events of that day.

In the 3rd Presidential debate and the VP debate, John Kerry and John Edwards both took an opportunity to bring up the topic of Dick Cheney's daughter. It was obvious that Cheney was somewhat irritated by Edwards' move when the two went head-to-head, and rightfully so. To speak in generic terms is fine. It crosses the line when you get into someone's private life without them bringing it up first. If Bush would have brought up Kerry's divorce in such a way as to use it against him, I'm sure Dems would be outraged. They would be justified in the feeling. I have respected the campaigns on both sides so far, but this tactic by Kerry/Edwards is just wrong. We all know campaigns will use quotes out of context, take cheap shots, spin half-truths, etc., and both sides have done it this year. However, getting that personal with an opponent when they haven't brought it up at the time is uncalled for. I realize Cheney has mentioned the subject before, but he hadn't said anything about it during his debate so Edwards shouldn't have. Edwards tried to disguise his attack as being nice and giving Cheney credit as a good father/family man, but it was obvious what he was doing. Unfortunately Kerry felt the need to go back to it again tonight. Totally classless in my opinion. Thoughts?

I mean its not like George W Bush doesn't do classless things to like lie about tree companies for good sound bites, grossly misquote Kerry, and take his positions out of context.... to find a new "flip flop" ... pot meet kettle.

Why the hell is it even a big deal that Dick Cheney's daugher is gay? Who really cares? If the government just kept its dick out of our bedrooms, it wouldn't be a "issue".

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! The reason 9/11 still needs to be brought up is because all those people who said, "We'll never forget," have forgotten. 9/11 opened our eyes to terrorism and it became apparent that we had to take the fight to the terrorists. Notice, that was "terrorists," not just bin Laden. Iraq had terrorist training grounds, Hussein wanted people to believe he had WMD's (he succeeded) which could have gotten into the hands of the terrorists, etc. People have let 9/11 slip from their memory and want to kid themselves into thinking that we're living in a pre-9/11 world. We're not. That's why 9/11 needs to be brought up and put back into the minds of all those who have forgotten, or at least mentally lessened, the tragic events of that day.

Ok, there's a difference between forgetting it, and MOVING THE FUCK ON.

I'm sorry, but to drag it out every fucking year is a shit on the graves of everyone who gave their life.

Face facts: 9/11 is used to inspire terror at this point. People don't think "That's right, we need to get those terrorists!" They think either "Holy shit, we got attacked, mommy!" or "Fucking...shut up about it already?'




It's gotten to the point where I wouldn't be surprised to hear "Lots of good people died during 9/11. Vote Bush/Cheney."





Further more, on this issue: I was unable to watch the debates, what exactly happened? Because...uh...you know, she IS a lesbian. If you walk up to some asian guy and go "Hey. You. You know what you are? You're ASIAN!" somehow doesn't make me consider it to be the most insulting thing ever.


Pfh, I'd think her dad was worst then Kerry. He's the one who's part of a part that activly wants to discriminate against her.

Cheney has talked about his daughter both on the campaign trail and in television interviews. He broke with Bush about the Constitutional amendment for marriage when polling showed that the American people were against amending the Constitution. Don't lie about why he did it.

When families begin stumping on the campaign trail, they become part of the campaign. Sorry, but that's the fact of the matter. And what the hell is wrong with all of you for thinking this is a low blow? Should Mary Cheney be forced to live in a closet for the remainder of her life because she's a lesbian? Her name should be excluded from the public because she doesn't live up to your standards? That's just pathetic. This reeks of the practice of several decades ago when disabled children were sent to state hospitals to live out their lives instead of being a negative blotch on families. Mary Cheney is not something to be hidden and neither Kerry nor Edwards said a single negative thing about her. Both talked in good terms about Cheney being a father to his daughter and if this is your idea of a negative attack, that's just partisan sickness.

Let me remind you of all the nasty things said about Chelsea Clinton during the 90's. Simply because she was Bill Clinton's daughter, she became the focus of brutal attacks on her by Republicans. Kerry and Edwards talked about the family strength of the Cheneys.

Where were all of you when Republicans were alleging that John Kerry shot himself in the leg to get a Purple Heart? Where were you when Republicans were saying that Kerry was associated with Jane Fonda? Where were you when Bob Dole was saying that Kerry's wounds in war were superficial and not worthy of anything? Where were you when Republicans were mocking a little girl injured that John Edwards defended during his time as a lawyer?

The venom in those attacks was sickening, yet Republicans stood idly by and began repeating these same things over and over again to anyone who would listen. Disgusting personal attacks. Yet when Kerry and Edwards talk about the strength of the Cheney family, you all cry about a low blow? Did you wait until Karl Rove told you to start whining about this, since you clearly can't say anything positive about Bush's performance?

Get some effing perspective on reality.

Why do you lie and say that you are a vet? You sir are no vet. From your previous posts you must be a whack-job. Were you in the military under Bill Clinton? Are you one of his "social" experiments'?

I mean its not like George W Bush doesn't do classless things to like lie about tree companies for good sound bites, grossly misquote Kerry, and take his positions out of context.... to find a new "flip flop" ... pot meet kettle.

First, both sides pick sound bites and misquote the other side to suit their own purpose. That's politics.

Second, when did Bush lie about the tree company? It has been shown that he was involved with that particular company prior to its lumber activity so the fact is that he had no ownership of the tree/lumber company. But, being that John Kerry said it, I guess you believed it, right? Because he would never mislead the public like Bush would, right? Get your facts straight. (By the way, thanks for playing.)

Ok, there's a difference between forgetting it, and MOVING THE FUCK ON.

I'm sorry, but to drag it out every fucking year is a shit on the graves of everyone who gave their life.

Face facts: 9/11 is used to inspire terror at this point. People don't think "That's right, we need to get those terrorists!" They think either "Holy shit, we got attacked, mommy!" or "Fucking...shut up about it already?'

I'm pretty sure Bush and Cheney aren't trying to inspire terror. Perhaps the terrorists are using the 9/11 videos and saying, "do this to the Americans because we hate their way of life." If that's the case, it further supports why we need to take the fight to them.



Further more, on this issue: I was unable to watch the debates, what exactly happened? Because...uh...you know, she IS a lesbian. If you walk up to some asian guy and go "Hey. You. You know what you are? You're ASIAN!" somehow doesn't make me consider it to be the most insulting thing ever.

It's a simple issue of not crossing the line into the personal life of a family member who isn't running for office. "Kerry was just trying to put a face on the issue." Why didn't he mention Ellen Degeneres? She's a famous face related to this issue. Why didn't he mention any of the numerous famous lesbians or gays? The answer is easy. They aren't related to Dick Cheney. Kerry tried taking a stab at Cheney's personal life when it was not called for. That's unacceptable.

If it's not unacceptable, then Bush should have responded to the question about the wives like this: "Well, I love my wife. In fact, she's the only one I have had. John Kerry, on the other hand, is on number two. He divorced his first wife, who had tons of money, so obviously something was wrong with that relationship. I don't know who was at fault. Thankfully his second marriage seems to be going well, except for that night they stayed in different hotel rooms while campaigning because of some sort of spat. But I think he's actually happy with Teresa. By the way, she's loaded too - just like the first wife. Anyway, I love my first and only wife."

Hey, it's not crossing the line if it's true, right?



Pfh, I'd think her dad was worst then Kerry. He's the one who's part of a part that activly wants to discriminate against her.

Very intelligent statement. Funny, John Kerry has also stated that he opposes gay marriage and doesn't support gays/lesbians receiving all the benefits of married couples. So, while the Bush/Cheney ticket is against gay marriage, I think you should also realize that the Kerry/Edwards bunch is too.

I should note that, if I remember correctly, that Edwards didn't bring up Cheney's daughter in the VP debate. The moderator did, in asking a question about Cheney's position on gay marriage and Bush's amendment. Cheney got to answer first, basically stating that he didn't like the idea of an amendment and wanted the issue to be left up to the states, but he still backs the President in his decisions. Edwards, in his response, stated that he thought Cheney loved his daughter very much and that he had a good family, and that the President was using the amendment as a tool of division since it was unnecessary from a state's rights perspective. I don't see anything bad about this (provided I am remembering correctly). If you have a problem with Cheney's daughter being brought up in the VP debate, the only one to blame is the moderator.




Your memory is indeed correct, the question was posed to Cheney first as:


"The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?


By talking about Cheney's love and respect for his daughter I though that Edwards was doing a classy move - not a nasty one. It was the moderator that was attempting to put Cheney on the spot regarding the aparent hypocricy of Cheney following the President's lead on this issue given his personal circumstance, and Edwards said apreciative things to let him off the hook.


You can't very well blame Edwards for having to deal with the questions posed by the moderator.....

Kerry Sorry for Remark About Cheney's Lesbian Child
(2004-10-14) -- John Forbes Kerry, father of two heterosexual daughters, today apologized for referring to the sexual preference of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter during last night's final presidential debate.

"There's nothing wrong with being one of God's homosexual children," said Mr. Kerry, an openly-heterosexual veteran of foreign war who is also a U.S. Senator, "And far be it from me to pry into the private life of Mr. Cheney's lesbian child, who is gay and a homosexual. People can't choose whom they will love, and so I should not have mentioned that his daughter is a lesbian person, and not a heterosexual, but in fact a gay homosexual woman who is a lesbian with the last name Cheney."

Mr. Kerry said he would send a card to the vice president's daughter to fully express his regrets.

"I'm sure Hallmark has a nice collection of cards that say things like, 'I'm sorry I talked about your sexual preferences on national TV'," said Mr. Kerry. "But I really wasn't trying to remind conservatives that the vice president has a daughter who is not heterosexual, but rather a homosexual lesbian gay woman named Cheney."

Mr. Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, will reportedly issue an apology tomorrow for similar remarks he made during his debate with Mr. Cheney.

by Scott Ott

:)

In the 3rd Presidential debate and the VP debate, John Kerry and John Edwards both took an opportunity to bring up the topic of Dick Cheney's daughter. It was obvious that Cheney was somewhat irritated by Edwards' move when the two went head-to-head, and rightfully so. To speak in generic terms is fine. It crosses the line when you get into someone's private life without them bringing it up first. If Bush would have brought up Kerry's divorce in such a way as to use it against him, I'm sure Dems would be outraged. They would be justified in the feeling. I have respected the campaigns on both sides so far, but this tactic by Kerry/Edwards is just wrong. We all know campaigns will use quotes out of context, take cheap shots, spin half-truths, etc., and both sides have done it this year. However, getting that personal with an opponent when they haven't brought it up at the time is uncalled for. I realize Cheney has mentioned the subject before, but he hadn't said anything about it during his debate so Edwards shouldn't have. Edwards tried to disguise his attack as being nice and giving Cheney credit as a good father/family man, but it was obvious what he was doing. Unfortunately Kerry felt the need to go back to it again tonight. Totally classless in my opinion. Thoughts?Erm, Clinton? Monica Lewinsky? Chelsea Clinton, the "White House dog" as suggested by a man in no position to say ANYTHING about someone's looks.

Quite frankly, I think this is a question we'd all like to know. How can a man with a gay daughter be a member of an administration which is sacked with raging homophobes?

Hey, as a gay person involved in politics, I have to say that everyone should chill out. Cheney's the one keeping his daughter out of the public eye. (Notice who was missing at his family "portrait" at the convention?)

I think it was unnecessary to mention her, but I don't think it was a pre-meditated move, just the most significant and relative name Kerry could think of while putting a personal touch on a big issue.

On the other hand, the tactic of the Bush-Cheney campaign to use gay rights as a tool to rally their base, that's a premeditated - and truly tasteless - move. Also, Lynne is overreacting big time. Calling Kerry a bad man? That's not helping anybody out.

Best, Atomerica

On the other hand, the tactic of the Bush-Cheney campaign to use gay rights as a tool to rally their base, that's a premeditated - and truly tasteless - move. Also, Lynne is overreacting big time. Calling Kerry a bad man? That's not helping anybody out.

Best, Atomerica

Overreacting a bit? Was it ok for Liz Edwards to say the Cheneys' are "ashamed" of their daughter?

Overreacting a bit? Was it ok for Liz Edwards to say the Cheneys' are "ashamed" of their daughter?

I agree with Liz Edwards' assessment, which was not that the Cheneys are ashamed of Mary. Liz said that because it was unclear just why Lynne was so angry (It struck me that they would have not been so angry had one of their children been mentioned as a small business owner in a discussion about small business economics.) she could only assume that there was a certain element of shame on Lynne's part regarding public recognition of Mary's sexuality.

She said it saddened her to hear it, and I concur. Ask yourself, Lynne Cheney, why is the mention of your daughter as a lesbian so outrageous and evil?

I agree with Liz Edwards' assessment, which was not that the Cheneys are ashamed of Mary. Liz said that because it was unclear just why Lynne was so angry (It struck me that they would have not been so angry had one of their children been mentioned as a small business owner in a discussion about small business economics.) she could only assume that there was a certain element of shame on Lynne's part regarding public recognition of Mary's sexuality.

You would agree. Its comments like these that can actually turn an election. Frankly, I felt that Kerry was wrong in mentioning it. Mr. and Mrs. Cheney felt the same way. They do love their daughter very much and her partner too. This was probably a very bad move on Kerry's part and I'm glad that he is trying to apologize and he should. Even the crowd at the debate site gasped when he mentioned Cheney's Daughter.

She said it saddened her to hear it, and I concur. Ask yourself, Lynne Cheney, why is the mention of your daughter as a lesbian so outrageous and evil?

It saddened her because Kerry was trying to score political points off of Bush/Cheney because of the Federal Marriage Amendment. However, Mary is supporting Bush/Cheney and is campaigning for them. This had to be the worse move Kerry can make.

In the 3rd Presidential debate and the VP debate, John Kerry and John Edwards both took an opportunity to bring up the topic of Dick Cheney's daughter. It was obvious that Cheney was somewhat irritated by Edwards' move when the two went head-to-head, and rightfully so. To speak in generic terms is fine. It crosses the line when you get into someone's private life without them bringing it up first. If Bush would have brought up Kerry's divorce in such a way as to use it against him, I'm sure Dems would be outraged. They would be justified in the feeling. I have respected the campaigns on both sides so far, but this tactic by Kerry/Edwards is just wrong. We all know campaigns will use quotes out of context, take cheap shots, spin half-truths, etc., and both sides have done it this year. However, getting that personal with an opponent when they haven't brought it up at the time is uncalled for. I realize Cheney has mentioned the subject before, but he hadn't said anything about it during his debate so Edwards shouldn't have. Edwards tried to disguise his attack as being nice and giving Cheney credit as a good father/family man, but it was obvious what he was doing. Unfortunately Kerry felt the need to go back to it again tonight. Totally classless in my opinion. Thoughts?

Cheyne appreciated Edward's comment. Even if it was for political benefit, it still was a nice comment. I cant say the same about Kerry's though since it was with a debate with bush.

I agree with Liz Edwards' assessment, which was not that the Cheneys are ashamed of Mary. Liz said that because it was unclear just why Lynne was so angry (It struck me that they would have not been so angry had one of their children been mentioned as a small business owner in a discussion about small business economics.) she could only assume that there was a certain element of shame on Lynne's part regarding public recognition of Mary's sexuality.

She said it saddened her to hear it, and I concur. Ask yourself, Lynne Cheney, why is the mention of your daughter as a lesbian so outrageous and evil?


Her daughter doesn't want the spotlight, which is why she works behind the scenes. She doesn't think her daughter should have to put up with political bs. Mrs Edward's was way out of line to suggest this. Would she be so kind if the Republicans talked about her dead kid or her large size? It is a private, family matter. Well what do you expect when you are married to a greasy lawyer who says that Kerry's funding of stem cell research will have people with injured spines get up out of their wheelchairs and walk.

I'm glad you can read minds and are a clinical head shrinker. I didn't get that from hearing Mrs Cheney's speech. It was in bad taste. Of all of the gay people Kerry knows, he had to use the VP's daughter? What about using the Gov. of NJ, Rosie O'Donell, Barney Franks, or even Dick Gephardts lesbian daughter?

Her daughter doesn't want the spotlight, which is why she works behind the scenes. She doesn't think her daughter should have to put up with political bs. Mrs Edward's was way out of line to suggest this. Would she be so kind if the Republicans talked about her dead kid or her large size? It is a private, family matter. Well what do you expect when you are married to a greasy lawyer who says that Kerry's funding of stem cell research will have people with injured spines get up out of their wheelchairs and walk.

I'm glad you can read minds and are a clinical head shrinker. I didn't get that from hearing Mrs Cheney's speech. It was in bad taste. Of all of the gay people Kerry knows, he had to use the VP's daughter? What about using the Gov. of NJ, Rosie O'Donell, Barney Franks, or even Dick Gephardts lesbian daughter?

Yeah if the dead kid was connected to the debates then yeah it'd be okay. But not if they used it to say," Hah hah,you had a dead kid." If they say it respectively thats okay. I thought Edwards and Kerry said it respectively.

Plus most people don't care much about those people you said. Rosie has become a wacko recently. And Kerry actually could remember Mary's name.
Sometimes the first thing that comes to your mind is easier to remember.

There is nothing wrong with calling out a barbaric hypocrite like Kerry and Edwards did.

If the republicans want to hate gay people or posture such as to give that impression, they must answer tough question about their own gay relatives.


Holding the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to any lower standard of integrity would border, in my opinion, upon treason.

Yeah if the dead kid was connected to the debates then yeah it'd be okay. But not if they used it to say," Hah hah,you had a dead kid." If they say it respectively thats okay. I thought Edwards and Kerry said it respectively.

Plus most people don't care much about those people you said. Rosie has become a wacko recently. And Kerry actually could remember Mary's name.
Sometimes the first thing that comes to your mind is easier to remember.

But Kerry is such a superb master debater.

I don't think it was tasteless. I think Kerry was just trying to point out the Hyprocises of the Bush Administration by supporting this Gay admendment when the VP daughter is gay herself.

There is nothing wrong with calling out a barbaric hypocrite like Kerry and Edwards did.

If the republicans want to hate gay people or posture such as to give that impression, they must answer tough question about their own gay relatives.


Holding the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to any lower standard of integrity would border, in my opinion, upon treason.

Tough questions? Those debate questions were cupcake questions.

"Barbaric" you must be joking!

Where do you get that Republicans "hate" gays? You really think Dick hates his daughter? Why would Dick give her such an important job if he hated her?

The debate was between Kerry and Bush, as far as I know, Bush doesn't have a gay lesbian homosexual daughter. Last time I checked, Kerry was against gay marriage as well. Unless of course he changed his mind.

Well, when this issue helps to cause the Kerry campaign to implode, you can thank those "Barbaric" Republicans for Kerry's stupidity.

I don't think it was tasteless. I think Kerry was just trying to point out the Hyprocises of the Bush Administration by supporting this Gay admendment when the VP daughter is gay herself.

How do you know Dick's daughter is in favor of gay marriage? Miss Cleo is that you??

Why do you lie and say that you are a vet? You sir are no vet. From your previous posts you must be a whack-job. Were you in the military under Bill Clinton? Are you one of his "social" experiments'?

Ah, I see. So because I support the man in the campaign who actually served his country instead of the wimp who shirked his responsibility and his running mate who had "other priorities" I'm not what you believe to be a vet.

I'm sick of people like you who wrap yourself around the flag and scream or browbeat others who don't agree with you. You don't hold the exclusive right to patriotism in this country. In fact, far from it. When you denigrate others and attempt to subdue the right of everyone to have an opinion, you are acting as far from being an American as you could possibly be.

I'm sure you're one of those people who tell people that they should move to France if they like it so much. I'm sure you're one of those people who shed tears for the flag when its raised, but have never seen one draped over a coffin. I'm sure you're one of those people who are so gung-ho about the military without realizing that the military is NOT a thing, but rather a bunch of people who each have their own lives and their own families.

We are supposed to uphold the freedom and rights of every American, not just those who you happen to agree with. And if you don't understand that, don't you dare go around patronizing others for not being as American as you. Part of being an American is standing up for the rights of even those people you don't agree with.

For the record, yes, I was in the military under Bill Clinton, as well as the first President Bush. Where were you?

For the record, yes, I was in the military under Bill Clinton, as well as the first President Bush. Where were you?

I was in the hospital for 2 years due to a military incident. You see our tank was hit by friendly fire in the Gulf War. Where were you?

Why would Dick give her such an important job if he hated her?

She works for the campaign. As such, subject to the same publicity as everyone else.

Since you took an opportunity to take a shot at me, let me return the favor. Are you a brown shirt or just a wannabe?

Ah, I see. So because I support the man in the campaign who actually served his country instead of the wimp who shirked his responsibility and his running mate who had "other priorities" I'm not what you believe to be a vet.


Kerry was no hero. What kind of man lies about the actions of others during times of war? What kind of man meets with the enemy on foreign soil to talk about peace (when it is forbidden)? What kind of man gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war? Why did it take him so long to get his discharge? Why was he flying around with an anti-war activist while still in uniform?

You are probably the kind of guy who thought Clinton was the greatest Commander-in-chief since IKE! The guy couldn't even salute correctly much like Kerry.

I was in the hospital for 2 years due to a military incident. You see our tank was hit by friendly fire in the Gulf War. Where were you?

I was heading through southern Iraq from Saudi Arabia, preparing to join up with coalition forces moving north from Kuwait.

She works for the campaign. As such, subject to the same publicity as everyone else.

Since you took an opportunity to take a shot at me, let me return the favor. Are you a brown shirt or just a wannabe?

Are you a pink shirt or just a wannabe?

Well if you were gay and your dad was a candidate, and you wanted to remain private, wouldn't you want that?

BTW What are you going to do when Bush wins?

Kerry was no hero. What kind of man lies about the actions of others during times of war? What kind of man meets with the enemy on foreign soil to talk about peace (when it is forbidden)? What kind of man gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war? Why did it take him so long to get his discharge? Why was he flying around with an anti-war activist while still in uniform?

You are probably the kind of guy who thought Clinton was the greatest Commander-in-chief since IKE! The guy couldn't even salute correctly much like Kerry.

Kerry served, Bush didn't. Moreso, Bush was in favor of the very same war he refused to be a part of. I can't imagine why that's ok with you.

Are you a pink shirt or just a wannabe?

Well if you were gay and your dad was a candidate, and you wanted to remain private, wouldn't you want that?

BTW What are you going to do when Bush wins?

She was never private about her sexual preference. She used her position in the campaign to get Coors Brewing Company to sponsor a Lesbian Festival. Don't keep lying to support your baseless claims. Its sad to see it.

And I don't have to worry about Bush winning. He didn't win last time and he won't win this time either.

Why was it classless? Do you feel that being gay is a negative thing? Kerry was not showing it in that way. And Cheneys daughter is already in the spotlight about her sexuality. Kerry didn't uncover this fact to the American people. You are just being (to borrow a Republican phrase) "A political Girly-man".

btw you just got MODED!

Kerry served, Bush didn't. Moreso, Bush was in favor of the very same war he refused to be a part of. I can't imagine why that's ok with you.

Kerry served, yes but what he did afterwards is disgraceful. This is not a talking point of the Bush campaign, it is Kerry's. He brought this upon himself, if he would have shut the heck up and not talked about Vietnam, this wouldn't be an issue.

Remember, you reap what you sow.

She was never private about her sexual preference. She used her position in the campaign to get Coors Brewing Company to sponsor a Lesbian Festival. Don't keep lying to support your baseless claims. Its sad to see it.

And I don't have to worry about Bush winning. He didn't win last time and he won't win this time either.

Since the RNC, when has Kerry led in the polls? He's losing it now as we speak. Can't wait for that sinclair show to air, should be great.

BTW what planet are you from? Bush won the electoral vote. No claims of any sort have held any water. Except of course for kooks like you and others here. Provide solid proof that Bush shouldn't be the President.

Ah, I see. So because I support the man in the campaign who actually served his country instead of the wimp who shirked his responsibility and his running mate who had "other priorities" I'm not what you believe to be a vet.

I'm sick of people like you who wrap yourself around the flag and scream or browbeat others who don't agree with you. You don't hold the exclusive right
I'm sure you're one of those people who tell people that they should move to France if they like it so much. I'm sure you're one of those people who shed to patriotism in this country. In fact, far from it. When you denigrate others and attempt to subdue the right of everyone to have an opinion, you are acting as far from being an American as you could possibly be.
tears for the flag when its raised, but have never seen one draped over a coffin. I'm sure you're one of those people who are so gung-ho about the military without realizing that the military is NOT a thing, but rather a bunch of people who each have their own lives and their own families.

We are supposed to uphold the freedom and rights of every American, not just those who you happen to agree with. And if you don't understand that, don't you dare go around patronizing others for not being as American as you. Part of being an American is standing up for the rights of even those people you don't agree with.

For the record, yes, I was in the military under Bill Clinton, as well as the first President Bush. Where were you?

nice. And it's so true, because I hear that argument so much, especially from my roommate. I calmly tell him my opinion and how I disapprove of everything President Bush has done in office, but basically his response is "no, you're wrong, why don't you go to France you liberal hippie"

I mean I don't see how any of Bush's policies have helped Americans at all, we're at war (for nebulous reasons at best, and if you disagree, think of 3 reasons for attacking iraq that doesn't apply to any other country), in the greatest national debt of American history, and this after popular vote was half a million for the other guy (with the winning state being governed by his brother and riddled with controversy, which Bush prohibited the UN from looking over)

By the way, the Constitution does include the provisions for "Life Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere on there does it say "unless you're a homo". And because of separation of church and state (which Bush ignores) the argument that religious groups define marriage as ... is pure bunk.

Nationalism is sticking by your country right or wrong (Nationalists can be heard saying, "you disagree, go to france bitch!", A patriot is one who loves his country and constantly wants better for and from it. (therefore the patriot act, effectively raping many constitutional amendments would more aptly be named the nationalist act, as it is in no way patriotic)

I consider myself a patriot. I want Bush out of office, he's screwed things up enough.

btw you just got MODED!


Wow, oh no. My life is over!

Tough questions? Those debate questions were cupcake questions.

"Barbaric" you must be joking!

Where do you get that Republicans "hate" gays? You really think Dick hates his daughter? Why would Dick give her such an important job if he hated her?

The debate was between Kerry and Bush, as far as I know, Bush doesn't have a gay lesbian homosexual daughter. Last time I checked, Kerry was against gay marriage as well. Unless of course he changed his mind.

Well, when this issue helps to cause the Kerry campaign to implode, you can thank those "Barbaric" Republicans for Kerry's stupidity.

Kerry was no hero. What kind of man lies about the actions of others during times of war? What kind of man meets with the enemy on foreign soil to talk about peace (when it is forbidden)? What kind of man gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war? Why did it take him so long to get his discharge? Why was he flying around with an anti-war activist while still in uniform?

You are probably the kind of guy who thought Clinton was the greatest Commander-in-chief since IKE! The guy couldn't even salute correctly much like Kerry.
First, 1st quote
Kerry is against gay marriage but he favors Civil Unions. He also believes the States can handle Gay marriage. I thought republicans wanted less not more govt? You know the whole state rights thingy...
That was why he doesn't like the Admendment. It takes away the states ability and makes it giovernments ability and choice.

second quote:
Kerry didn't lie, but may have exaggerated. Up to you whether he only exaggerated or didn't lie at all. But either way he didn't lie.
Well seeing as it was a public meeting sponsered by the United States government... America is a traitor? So it can't be forbidden if we do it.
"Aid and comfort" what if not telling the trutrh was aid and comfort? Then by telling this he stopped that aid and comfort. I live by the code that hiding the truth is worse than lying.
He revealed the truth so I commend that. What anti-war activist?

First, 1st quote
Kerry is against gay marriage but he favors Civil Unions. He also believes the States can handle Gay marriage. I thought republicans wanted less not more govt? You know the whole state rights thingy...
That was why he doesn't like the Admendment. It takes away the states ability and makes it giovernments ability and choice.


Hey a question for you...If one state legalizes gay marriage, wouldn't the rest have to honor that contract?

Hey a question for you...If one state legalizes gay marriage, wouldn't the rest have to honor that contract?

apparently not, as some states choose to outlaw gay marriage and even refuse to acknowledge marriages done in other states. I think Utah was one of them , but i'm not exactly sure.

Kerry served, Bush didn't. Moreso, Bush was in favor of the very same war he refused to be a part of. I can't imagine why that's ok with you.
I know a lot of National Guardmens that would disagree with you. Either candidate has done more for their country than you have.

I know a lot of National Guardmens that would disagree with you. Either candidate has done more for their country than you have.

okay fine, I respect the National Guard, when you do your duty, however if you just happen to go AWOL for about a year at a time, I don't think you've quite fulfilled your duty.

okay fine, I respect the National Guard, when you do your duty, however if you just happen to go AWOL for about a year at a time, I don't think you've quite fulfilled your duty.
There's no evidence that he did or did not do his duty, there are simply holes, which should have been filled with reports if he did do it, and reports if he skipped. Either way, it was some superior's fault.

There's no evidence that he did or did not do his duty, there are simply holes, which should have been filled with reports if he did do it, and reports if he skipped. Either way, it was some superior's fault.

sure, for an entire year. And his other "public" records that are also unavailable for public view, his superiors screwed up for his whole life, no wonder the guy's an idiot.

second quote:
Kerry didn't lie, but may have exaggerated. Up to you whether he only exaggerated or didn't lie at all. But either way he didn't lie.
Well seeing as it was a public meeting sponsered by the United States government... America is a traitor? So it can't be forbidden if we do it.
"Aid and comfort" what if not telling the trutrh was aid and comfort? Then by telling this he stopped that aid and comfort. I live by the code that hiding the truth is worse than lying.
He revealed the truth so I commend that. What anti-war activist?

Exaggeration? He was given talking points by some people who were not soldiers and who had never been in Vietnam, but lied and said they were. Wow I see now, he believed these liars then and believed when the President said Iraq had wmd's. Kind of looks like he may just be too gullible.

The anti-war activist was Adam Walinsky. He was still on active duty assigned to Admiral Schlech. Not very nice Mr. Kerry. He was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty". A nine point document that may have been drawn up by the East Germans. Kerry was not a delegate to the official Paris Peace talks. He was not authorized to negotiate anything.

The statements he used were used by the VC and NVA prison camp officials to torture them until they signed "confessions", and demoralize them. Hardly a patriot.

This could all be put to rest if he released his entire service record.

sure, for an entire year. And his other "public" records that are also unavailable for public view, his superiors screwed up for his whole life, no wonder the guy's an idiot.
Which other public records? And losing them for an entire year isn't unimaginable, I'm a reservist and a guy in my unit is missing records from now til 2002.

The Cheney's are bound by their political ideals and loyalty to George Bush to support the Republican, and conservative, way of life which looks down on homosexuals.

Kerry was merely pointing out that Cheney's values go against the grain of the most familiar structure in the society that conservatives are trying to preserve against the perverseness of same-sex couples -- the family.

In a nutshell, he shits on his daughter every day by maintaining his hard-line Republican stance.

apparently not, as some states choose to outlaw gay marriage and even refuse to acknowledge marriages done in other states. I think Utah was one of them , but i'm not exactly sure.


Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by Amendment XIII.)



I think most states would have to honor a contract from another state.

I know a lot of National Guardmens that would disagree with you. Either candidate has done more for their country than you have.

Gee, you mean the president and a senator have done more for my country than me?

WHEW!! Thanks one heck of a lot for telling me that. Man, I've been going around for the last year talking about how much more I've done than those two and no one has told me otherwise. Here I was thinking about all I've done for my country and how little the president and a senator have done and you finally come along to correct me.

If I had your address, I'd send you a thank you gift for pointing out this blatantly wrong belief I've held.

Rutentuten:

In response to your last post (with the quotes from the Constitution), it's up in the air, legally speaking, as near as I know. The point of contention?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Emphasis is mine, obviously.

This clause is why, for instance, marriage licenses between heterosexual couples are valid in other states (i.e. you can get married in Vegas and have the marriage be legal in your home state, or you can move and not have to get remarried in your new home state, etc.). It also applies to various other contracts and such. The problem is that it only works if the "Privilege or Immunity" in question exists in both states. The anti-gay marriage, states' rights people argue that this is why Massachusetts's marriage licenses for homosexual couples never have to count in other states, since as of right now Massachusetts is the only state that has such a license and by their argumentation this clause thus does not protect that license in other states.

The problem is that there are other, just as valid (or, in my mind at least, more valid) arguments the other way. For instance, marriage, while regulated by the states, is also a federally binding contract (for things such as income tax returns, etc.), so the federal government in theory has to accept gay marriage licenses if a state issues them, which leads to "discrimination by the federal government" problems. Also, the Constitution gives an express right to travel freely within the US and to live where you so desire... which is violated if gay marriage licenses are not accepted across state lines since that very much impacts one's ability to move or even visit other states. It's complicated.

Just a general note as to the debate going on here about why Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter, I'd like to somewhat mockingly paraphrase the pertinent question in the debate:

Moderator, to Bush: Is homosexuality a choice?

Bush: I don't know, but I know my policy regarding them is right anyway.

Kerry: Why don't you know? You could just ask. In fact, you know Cheney's daughter, who is openly gay. Why don't you ask her?

I'm not a mind reader (nor is anyone else on these boards), but that was my take on it. I didn't think it was insulting (to Cheney's daughter, at least).

And I don't have to worry about Bush winning. He didn't win last time and he won't win this time either.

Bush did win Thunderland. Incase you haven't noticed, we don't do things by Popular Vote for President. The President is selected by the Electoral College and he did win that.

And before you bring up the Supreme Court stole Florida for Bush line, I can get ahold of the Supreme Court Opinion. Hell, I have a piece of it in my Government Class Text Book.

someone on here used to have a quote from southpark in their sig
one boy called another boy a jew.
the boy replied "but i AM a jew"
"oh dont be so hard on yourself"

mary cheney IS a lesbian and there is utterly nothing wrong with mentioning it. she is not keeping it a secret nor is she keeping herself away from her fathers campaign. she is his campaign manager isnt she?

and i doubt they are embarassed for it being brought up in public, its not new to anyone.

what they are embarassed by is that it highlights their differences with the president. they object to having their family circumstances and beliefs being used to show what an intolerant ass the president is. it puts them into a POLITCALLY bad light.

im not sure if the word for that is hypocrisy or cowardice.

i dont think kerry was classless for using their hypocrisy against them.

Bush did win Thunderland. Incase you haven't noticed, we don't do things by Popular Vote for President. The President is selected by the Electoral College and he did win that.

And before you bring up the Supreme Court stole Florida for Bush line, I can get ahold of the Supreme Court Opinion. Hell, I have a piece of it in my Government Class Text Book.

I was responding to a tactless attack by being a smartass Corneliu. Though I'd be happy to debate with you the legality of the Supreme Court's ruling in another thread sometime. That would be an interesting topic, were it kept free of emotional rants.

I was responding to a tactless attack by being a smartass Corneliu. Though I'd be happy to debate with you the legality of the Supreme Court's ruling in another thread sometime. That would be an interesting topic, were it kept free of emotional rants.

This Agree with you. It should be an interesting debate but we all know that flames will start to spout unless its just a debate between you and I :p

And to be honest, I don't agree with everything your opponet is saying though I do think it was in poor taste that he singled her out like that. That is just my opinion.

In the 3rd Presidential debate and the VP debate, John Kerry and John Edwards both took an opportunity to bring up the topic of Dick Cheney's daughter. It was obvious that Cheney was somewhat irritated by Edwards' move when the two went head-to-head, and rightfully so. To speak in generic terms is fine. It crosses the line when you get into someone's private life without them bringing it up first. If Bush would have brought up Kerry's divorce in such a way as to use it against him, I'm sure Dems would be outraged. They would be justified in the feeling. I have respected the campaigns on both sides so far, but this tactic by Kerry/Edwards is just wrong. We all know campaigns will use quotes out of context, take cheap shots, spin half-truths, etc., and both sides have done it this year. However, getting that personal with an opponent when they haven't brought it up at the time is uncalled for. I realize Cheney has mentioned the subject before, but he hadn't said anything about it during his debate so Edwards shouldn't have. Edwards tried to disguise his attack as being nice and giving Cheney credit as a good father/family man, but it was obvious what he was doing. Unfortunately Kerry felt the need to go back to it again tonight. Totally classless in my opinion. Thoughts?


I don't see what the big deal is. It isn't like John Kerry made this matter of Cheney's daughter's sexuality a known fact. If you really, really, wanna hear tasteless, offensive remarks towards homosexuals check out some of the major groups/individuals which support the Republican party, namely right wing Christians and "pro family" *cough* groups.

"We are all born sinners." -- George W. Bush

Stating homosexuals are inherently 'sinful' over and above the "heteronormative ideal" in an address to supporters^^ of a proposed constitutional ban on same sex marriages.

Bush did win Thunderland. Incase you haven't noticed, we don't do things by Popular Vote for President. The President is selected by the Electoral College and he did win that.
Ah but the electoral college votes from Florida, those who ultimately decided who won the election, were very much contested as the votes in the state were ripe with irregularities. If you listen to the pro-Gore people, they will tell you that frauds gave the electoral college votes from Folrida to Bush when they should have been his. (Thus electing him as president).

This Agree with you. It should be an interesting debate but we all know that flames will start to spout unless its just a debate between you and I :p

And to be honest, I don't agree with everything your opponet is saying though I do think it was in poor taste that he singled her out like that. That is just my opinion.

All the more reason why you're one of my favorite posters on the opposite side of the political spectrum from myself. You can say your piece without insulting anyone while doing so.

Ah but the electoral college votes from Florida, those who ultimately decided who won the election, were very much contested as the votes in the state were ripe with irregularities. If you listen to the pro-Gore people, they will tell you that frauds gave the electoral college votes from Folrida to Bush when they should have been his. (Thus electing him as president).

And where did most fraud occur at? Oh that is right, in DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLDS

Were these remarks enough for Cheney to drop another explative?

From Edwards, it was a good debating tactic and was done in a mostly polite manner.

From Kerry, it really was unecessary and probably hurt his case more than helped him.

All the more reason why you're one of my favorite posters on the opposite side of the political spectrum from myself. You can say your piece without insulting anyone while doing so.

For the most part I can. Sometimes, I do get a tad riled up and an insult flies, but I do normally apologize for it.

its no more classless than his strongly stated admiration for laura bush. wasnt he just USING that to make points against his opponent too?

And where did most fraud occur at? Oh that is right, in DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLDS
As it just happens it was targetted against minorities voters. Now let me tell you something about minorities voters: They usually vote democrat. Therefore, when a block is mainly populated by black, it usually become a DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLD. If you want to send faulty voting equiment and you want the republicans to win where will you send it? DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLDS. If someone find a fraud you perpetuated where will they find it? DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLDS. So your argument is completely irrelevent.

If anything he should have dug deeper and slung more muck.The day there will be class in politics...well not that class but the ...who cares...mud more mud..

If someone tried to say there was something wrong with your daughter and used it as an issue on National TV, would you not get up (election or no) and punch the guy?

Next on Jerry Springer: These two guys battle it out for the love of the Nation
The problem with that is that it's the Republicans who say something is wrong with her, at the RNC Alan Keyes called her a "selfish hedonist".
If the Bush/Cheney campaign was anything but dirty right from the start, they might have a case. Kerry is supposed to play like a gentleman while he keeps getting kicked in the balls? False modesty will get you nowhere. Bush can't campaign on any of his own achievements, he only attacks Kerry on a daily basis. Hey Dick, go F#$^ YOURself pal.

You would agree. Its comments like these that can actually turn an election. Frankly, I felt that Kerry was wrong in mentioning it. Mr. and Mrs. Cheney felt the same way. They do love their daughter very much and her partner too. This was probably a very bad move on Kerry's part and I'm glad that he is trying to apologize and he should. Even the crowd at the debate site gasped when he mentioned Cheney's Daughter.

It saddened her because Kerry was trying to score political points off of Bush/Cheney because of the Federal Marriage Amendment. However, Mary is supporting Bush/Cheney and is campaigning for them. This had to be the worse move Kerry can make.

I'd work for my Dad's campaign even if I disagreed with its policy. I just wouldn't be that visible, a la Mary.

And what do you mean, "You would agree"? That's something you say to someone you...know. And I don't know you.

And if you think it's turning the election, think again. Check out the polls on whether or not voters think it was appropriate. The only people energized by this are people already voting Bush/Cheney (and only some of them), because everyone else knows this administration doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not regarding gay rights (their policies are apalling), not regarding mentioning Mary (they've done it themselves), and not regarding low blows.

Only this administration would act like identifying an individual as a lesbian is slander. They are doing themselves a disservice with this reaction. But it's to be expected, since it was the only talking point they could salvage from three miserable debates for Bush.

Read this article, and hear what Dick Gephardt (father of a lesbian) and Steve Gunderson (a gay Republican congressman) have to say.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6254301/

The Republicans are desperate, and are using Mary to portray Kerry as a "bad man", a childish claim.

I'd work for my Dad's campaign even if I disagreed with its policy. I just wouldn't be that visible, a la Mary.

Maybe! And it could be possible but from what I'm hearing, her partner is respected by Mary's parents.

And what do you mean, "You would agree"? That's something you say to someone you...know. And I don't know you.

I said you would agree with what Mrs. Edwards said.

And if you think it's turning the election, think again. Check out the polls on whether or not voters think it was appropriate. The only people energized by this are people already voting Bush/Cheney (and only some of them), because everyone else knows this administration doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not regarding gay rights (their policies are apalling), not regarding mentioning Mary (they've done it themselves), and not regarding low blows.

It could. It will swing some, but not alot to really turn an election. I spoken out of context. It won't necessarily turn an election but some will vote for Bush because of what Kerry said.

Only this administration would act like identifying an individual as a lesbian is slander. They are doing themselves a disservice with this reaction. But it's to be expected, since it was the only talking point they could salvage from three miserable debates for Bush.

Wrong! He mentioned Cheney's daughter. I bet Kerry would act the same way if he had a lesbian daughter and Bush said something like that. Hell, I'd place bets that if Bush said something like that, the media would be all over it more than they are currently.

Read this article, and hear what Dick Gephardt (father of a lesbian) and Steve Gunderson (a gay Republican congressman) have to say.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6254301/

The Republicans are desperate, and are using Mary to portray Kerry as a "bad man", a childish claim.

I've heard what they are saying! As for your last comment, Both sides want to win and will say anything to get elected.

Maybe! And it could be possible but from what I'm hearing, her partner is respected by Mary's parents.

I'm sure they do. Whatever shame they feel is more likely connected with the conflict of interests they have in this campaign, and I think their reaction is very much connected to their frustration with it.

I said you would agree with what Mrs. Edwards said.

Yes, and how would you know "I would". That's what I'm wondering.

It could. It will swing some, but not alot to really turn an election. I spoken out of context. It won't necessarily turn an election but some will vote for Bush because of what Kerry said .

Again, doubt it. Last poll I saw had somewhere around 60% saying Kerry's comment was appropriate.

Wrong! He mentioned Cheney's daughter. I bet Kerry would act the same way if he had a lesbian daughter and Bush said something like that. Hell, I'd place bets that if Bush said something like that, the media would be all over it more than they are currently.

Yes, and in another debate Kerry mentioned Bush's father, stating *a fact* about him. This is the same, since Mary is a public, and political, figure in the campaign, and all Kerry said was a fact.

I've heard what they are saying! As for your last comment, Both sides want to win and will say anything to get elected.

The Kerry campaign has never said Bush is a bad person. Quite the opposite, usually saying that both candidates love America, but one has a better way of showing it. I'm sure they believe he is a bad person, however.

I'm sure they do. Whatever shame they feel is more likely connected with the conflict of interests they have in this campaign, and I think their reaction is very much connected to their frustration with it.

I doubt it personally. I think Cheney is on record about this somewhere. During the whole thing, not once did I hear a peep out of him. If its a conflict of interest, the best way to get around it is to excuse yourself from it and I think that is what he did. Not once did I hear him campaign for it.

Yes, and how would you know "I would". That's what I'm wondering.

Listening to your comments I take it that you are a democrat. That is how I know. If I'm wrong, I will apologize to you.

pAgain, doubt it. Last poll I saw had somewhere around 60% saying Kerry's comment was appropriate.

Check the source of that poll.

Yes, and in another debate Kerry mentioned Bush's father, stating *a fact* about him. This is the same, since Mary is a public, and political, figure in the campaign, and all Kerry said was a fact.

And what was this "fact"? Mary is a public political figure? Wow! I did not know she was running for office! What office is she running for?

By a Two to One Margin, most people condemn what Kerry said in the debate regarding his comment on Dick Cheney's Daughter.

Poll: Most Condemn Kerry Debate Comment (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=169306&page=1)

No this is NOT Fox News but ABC and this surprised me coming from them.

It was a cheap politcal move that was purely only motivated by slinging dirt at the Bush campaign. The families of the candidates should be off limits in my opinion, period. On top of that, Elizabeth Edwards comments were just dastardly. Yes Cheney's daughter is involved in the campaign and such, but in no way does that make her sexual orientation "up for grabs" as far as politcal commentary goes.

It was an idiotic move and the polls are slowly reflecting this.

I would hope that most people can see the difference between being a twin and being gay.
So - enlighten us, what is the difference?

I bet you're going to say one's an accident of birth and the other is really really naughty.

It was a cheap politcal move that was purely only motivated by slinging dirt at the Bush campaign. The families of the candidates should be off limits in my opinion, period. On top of that, Elizabeth Edwards comments were just dastardly. Yes Cheney's daughter is involved in the campaign and such, but in no way does that make her sexual orientation "up for grabs" as far as politcal commentary goes.

It was an idiotic move and the polls are slowly reflecting this.

Dirt? What dirt? Did Kerry say a thing that was negative? Why are the Cheneys' reacting as if Kerry insulted Mary Cheney?

Seriously, all of you condemning this are just being parrots. How many of you remember what Kerry said?

Dirt? What dirt? Did Kerry say a thing that was negative? Why are the Cheneys' reacting as if Kerry insulted Mary Cheney?

Seriously, all of you condemning this are just being parrots. How many of you remember what Kerry said?

I do remember it and so do most people since an ABC poll came out and stated that 2 outta 1 people condemn what Kerry said.

In the 3rd Presidential debate and the VP debate, John Kerry and John Edwards both took an opportunity to bring up the topic of Dick Cheney's daughter. It was obvious that Cheney was somewhat irritated by Edwards' move when the two went head-to-head, and rightfully so. To speak in generic terms is fine. It crosses the line when you get into someone's private life without them bringing it up first. If Bush would have brought up Kerry's divorce in such a way as to use it against him, I'm sure Dems would be outraged. They would be justified in the feeling. I have respected the campaigns on both sides so far, but this tactic by Kerry/Edwards is just wrong. We all know campaigns will use quotes out of context, take cheap shots, spin half-truths, etc., and both sides have done it this year. However, getting that personal with an opponent when they haven't brought it up at the time is uncalled for. I realize Cheney has mentioned the subject before, but he hadn't said anything about it during his debate so Edwards shouldn't have. Edwards tried to disguise his attack as being nice and giving Cheney credit as a good father/family man, but it was obvious what he was doing. Unfortunately Kerry felt the need to go back to it again tonight. Totally classless in my opinion. Thoughts?

To speak in generic terms is fine? How so? To speak of homosexuals as a class, without faces, and to say that they are all going to Hell and that their religious rights (marriage) should not be protected and should even be limited by constitutional amendment is fine, as long as you don't name names?

That's just great. That's what the neocons want. Don't put a face on the oppressed. That's just fine.

2 outta 1 people condemn what Kerry said.

Source it!

I do remember it and so do most people since an ABC poll came out and stated that 2 outta 1 people condemn what Kerry said.

Two out of every one person condemn it? Why the Hell should we listen to polsters who report 200% results on one side?

I do remember it and so do most people since an ABC poll came out and stated that 2 outta 1 people condemn what Kerry said.


2 outta 1?

So, schizophrenics condemn Kerry?

Gee.... well if the Schizo's are for GW - that sure puts things in perspective don't it?!

:D

Source it!

I did but I will do so again!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=169306&page=1

Two out of every one person condemn it? Why the Hell should we listen to polsters who report 200% results on one side?

This is ABC! Not Fox News! LOL

This is ABC!

According to you ABC is not credible.. LOL (look at your past posts)

According to you ABC is not credible.. LOL (look at your past posts)

Hey, they also do the ABC/Washington Post polls and I find them pretty accurate! What I don't find accurate are some of their snap polls.

This poll though, I can find credible and before you say because I am supporting Bush, that is not the reason. There was an outrage over it. Even the audience at the debate was not to happy with the comment so by looking at evidence, I can find this poll credible. I am having some different opinions regarding their polling and though, I don't fully trust them, I can put what they are saying and compare them to others that I do trust.

Hey, they also do the ABC/Washington Post polls and I find them pretty accurate! What I don't find accurate are some of their snap polls.

This poll though, I can find credible and before you say because I am supporting Bush, that is not the reason. There was an outrage over it. Even the audience at the debate was not to happy with the comment so by looking at evidence, I can find this poll credible. I am having some different opinions regarding their polling and though, I don't fully trust them, I can put what they are saying and compare them to others that I do trust.

It's really a non-issue and you know it. It's not going to change one person's mind.. the republicans are trying to give this legs and in the end it won't make a damn bit of difference. If you know as much as you claim to, you know that as well as I do. Kerry didn't do any thing that Cheney hasn't done himself on the stump!

It's really a non-issue and you know it. It's not going to change one person's mind.. the republicans are trying to give this legs and in the end it won't make a damn bit of difference. If you know as much as you claim to, you know that as well as I do. Kerry didn't do any thing that Cheney hasn't done himself on the stump!

You could be right steph but I'm just reporting what the ABC poll has stated.

I'm having a good laugh at all this bitchy little girl stuff from the Republicans now. Instead of answering to criticisms on policy, Bush answers with this whiny crap about how Kerry is hurting our allies feelings, the Iraqi's feelings and now poor, poor, Dick's feelings. I don't believe in it and I'm laughing at you.

as for claiming the remarks weren't classless because cheney thanked him for them, what was he supposed to say "rot in hell you insensitive little f***er" ? on national tv let's hope not

how can the bush campaign respond to criticisms on policy i'm not quite sure where they're criticized on policy.
our soldiers need to be better equipped... but don't actually spend the money to equip them

and as for moral issues, kerry claims to be catholic, which means accepting that there is OBJECTIVE moral truth, eg no matter who what or where you are some things are right or wrong

abortion is one of them he claims to be a catholic and thus accept catholic moral (as opposed to social) teachings on abortion but let's not make a policy against something that's supposedly objectively wrong you can sub in fetal stem cell research, gay marriage and more

Bush sent the soldiers in there in the first place without the equipment they needed, how can that be blamed on Kerry? I asked a guy that just got back from there, he didn't have body armor to start with.
You just illustrated my point for me perfectly. The criticism was that Bush called for a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage and then Cheney wheeled out his gay daughter saying he didn't support the ban on gay marriage. Did you watch the debate? Is that a flip-flop by the Bush administration, where do they stand then exactly? Is it a shameless pander to the log-cabin Republican voters? Make me laugh some more, please.

as for claiming the remarks weren't classless because cheney thanked him for them, what was he supposed to say "rot in hell you insensitive little f***er" ? on national tv let's hope not

how can the bush campaign respond to criticisms on policy i'm not quite sure where they're criticized on policy.
our soldiers need to be better equipped... but don't actually spend the money to equip them

and as for moral issues, kerry claims to be catholic, which means accepting that there is OBJECTIVE moral truth, eg no matter who what or where you are some things are right or wrong

abortion is one of them he claims to be a catholic and thus accept catholic moral (as opposed to social) teachings on abortion but let's not make a policy against something that's supposedly objectively wrong you can sub in fetal stem cell research, gay marriage and more

As I've said a couple of times on this thread thus far, Edwards did NOT bring up Cheney's daughter in the VP debate - the moderator did. The comments in the VP debate on both sides were perfectly tactful on this point.

As for the rest of these complaints... I'm not that sure where they are coming from. Both sides have made their positions on these issues fairly clear. As for the "Kerry is Catholic therefore Kerry must believe X and this contradicts his position" routine, being a member of any group (even a religion) does not entail unequivocal support of everything the group as a whole supports. Not all Republicans are against environmental regulations, not all Democrats are pro-gun control, and certainly not all Catholics are pro-life (especially to the extreme extent that the Catholic Church and other hardcore Christian religious associations are). So, I don't understand your points here.

Bush sent the soldiers in there in the first place without the equipment they needed, how can that be blamed on Kerry? I asked a guy that just got back from there, he didn't have body armor to start with.
You just illustrated my point for me perfectly. The criticism was that Bush called for a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage and then Cheney wheeled out his gay daughter saying he didn't support the ban on gay marriage. Did you watch the debate? Is that a flip-flop by the Bush administration, where do they stand then exactly? Is it a shameless pander to the log-cabin Republican voters? Make me laugh some more, please.


And Kerry voted against the money to supply the troops with the equipment they needed. Since when does financial legislation begin in the Executive branch?

And during which debate was Cheney's daughter wheeled out?

"And Kerry voted against the money to supply the troops with the equipment they needed. Since when does financial legislation begin in the Executive branch?"

Did Kerry not vote for the bill the first time it was in the Senate, when it was voted down by the Republicans? And the time he voted against it, was that not when it was passed? If it was passed EVEN THOUGH KERRY VOTED AGAINST IT, how can their lack of body armour be blamed upon him? After all, the bill that supposedly gave them everything they needed got through..

or am I wrong?

The one with the most crap on her hands in this whole situation is Elizabeth Edwards. She is so scummy, she actually came out and said that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter. The edwards family is one giant sewage pond, with the scum rising to the top.

The one with the most crap on her hands in this whole situation is Elizabeth Edwards. She is so scummy, she actually came out and said that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter. The edwards family is one giant sewage pond, with the scum rising to the top.

Uh, okay. I think you're letting your political allegiances influence your perception of people.

And I wouldn't doubt that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter...it's hard to be a conservative and not hate gays apparently. But politics is politics.

Cheney: "Yes I have a gay daughter. I believe in freedom, etc..."

Log Cabin Republicans clap appreciatively.

Kerry: "He has a gay daughter. We're all God's children..."

Conventional Republicans scream bloody murder.

And I wouldn't doubt that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter...it's hard to be a conservative and not hate gays apparently. But politics is politics.[/i]

Come on, Chodolo. I have had several back-and-forth posts with you and this isn't your typical stuff...at least it hasn't been in my experiences with you. This excerpt from your post is ignorant. Please notice that I'm not saying you are ignorant. I don't believe you are. However, I think your political viewpoints are clouding your argument. To say that you don't doubt that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter is ridiculous. And to say it's hard to be conservative and not hate gays is also off-base. I have stated many times that I'm pro-Bush/conservative, yet I'm in support of gay unions. I know MANY Republicans/conservatives who feel the same way. So please don't bring the "conservative = gay-hater" garbage. Yes, there are conservatives who don't like gays, but there are also liberals who don't. There are liberals/conservatives who don't like blacks. There are probably liberals/conservatives who dislike people in any group. Again, I know you're capable of far more intelligent posts than the one I quoted. Don't let other idiotic posters bring you down to a "dirty politics" level.

I don't think the Cheneys are ashamed of their daughter. What I do think is that Bush lost the debate badly, and his handlers needed to deflect the news cycle. The only way they could do that was to scream bloody murder about an innocent remark that had been echoed before several times by Cheney himself.

What did Kerry say that was bad? Did he say anything remotely negative?

I see nothing wrong with Kerry/Edwards bringing up Cheney's daughter. Why don't Bush and Cheney do something in retaliation? Oh, because they're "too sophisticated". Just like all republicans, right? Bullcrap. This is the U.S., someone throws a punch, you throw back.

I don't think the Cheneys are ashamed of their daughter. What I do think is that Bush lost the debate badly, and his handlers needed to deflect the news cycle. The only way they could do that was to scream bloody murder about an innocent remark that had been echoed before several times by Cheney himself.

What did Kerry say that was bad? Did he say anything remotely negative?
Not ashamed at all! They're just red neck, right-wing Nazi Christian conservatives who hate Jews, blacks, homosexuals, Arabs, Latinos, and Asians.... I'm sure they love their daughter! :)

I don't think the Cheneys are ashamed of their daughter. What I do think is that Bush lost the debate badly, and his handlers needed to deflect the news cycle. The only way they could do that was to scream bloody murder about an innocent remark that had been echoed before several times by Cheney himself.

What did Kerry say that was bad? Did he say anything remotely negative?

Why didn't he bring up Gephardts daughter who is also gay. Why did he have to say "lesbian" almost under his breath. This was a well thought out plan to try and drive a wedge between Bush and the religious right. I think it backfired, especially when Edwards wife made her mean spirited comment.

With the problem of obesity in the US do you think that Edwards is ashamed of his fat wife? She was not fat when they married.

Why didn't he bring up Gephardts daughter who is also gay. Why did he have to say "lesbian" almost under his breath. This was a well thought out plan to try and drive a wedge between Bush and the religious right. I think it backfired, especially when Edwards wife made her mean spirited comment.

With the problem of obesity in the US do you think that Edwards is ashamed of his fat wife? She was not fat when they married.

A. Bringing up Gephard's daughter would not have been as effective as a debate tactic.

B. If the religious right have a problem with one of their candidates having a gay daughter, then a wedge deserves to be made. Seriously, fuck the activist wing of the religious right. Fuck them in whatever orifice they find to be most sinful.

C. No question was given to the debaters about obesity. Republicans are acting as if Kerry said, "Hey, Dicks daughter is a carpet-muncher!" in his closing remarks or something.

When Kerry is elected, we'll be back to a Presidential blowjob being the biggest worry about our president.

Actually, perjury was my biggest worry about the last President, but to each his own.

umm, I'll think you'll find that the Bush campaign HAS brought up and supported accusations of Kerry's war record and used his past personal war record history against him. It was quite a big issue a few weeks back, remember?

And thouroughly debunked.

deal with it

Cheney's daughter is gay. The candidates were asked a question about gay people. Why it is such a bad thing to use Cheney's daughter as an example of a gay person who people might actually have heard of I do not understand.

What should Kerry have said, something like "I'm sure Elton John thinks God made him that way"? Or would that be too offensive as well?

In any case I find it ironic that the inventors of modern attack politics bemoan Kerry's reference to the skies.

Cheney's daughter is gay. The candidates were asked a question about gay people. Why it is such a bad thing to use Cheney's daughter as an example of a gay person who people might actually have heard of I do not understand.

What should Kerry have said, something like "I'm sure Elton John thinks God made him that way"? Or would that be too offensive as well?

In any case I find it ironic that the inventors of modern attack politics bemoan Kerry's reference to the skies.

What is ironic is that the children of the candidates should be left out of the campaigns. Everyone respected the privacy of that horse faced Chelsea Clinton as they should have. That Kerry would drag the child of a candidate into the debate to score some political points is precedent setting. THEN to have one of his campaign managers say she is "fair game" and having to set THAT record straight by Kerry himself shows that things are out of control in the Kerry camp. However, it seems that it has backfired on him and could turn out to be a turning point.

Actually, perjury was my biggest worry about the last President, but to each his own.

Why was $10 miilion of taxpayer money spent on the investigation of a blow job anyway? Clinton lies....about something that is not a crime and didn't involve his duties as a President. Why was Congress even asking the question?

Why was $10 miilion of taxpayer money spent on the investigation of a blow job anyway? Clinton lies....about something that is not a crime and didn't involve his duties as a President. Why was Congress even asking the question?

The lying was in the Paula Jones case.....thats where the perjury came in. Clinton is and was a scumbag. While some love the guy, other revile him. He is a polarizing figure that refuses to go quietly into retirement for some reason.

What is ironic is that the children of the candidates should be left out of the campaigns. Everyone respected the privacy of that horse faced Chelsea Clinton as they should have. That Kerry would drag the child of a candidate into the debate to score some political points is precedent setting. THEN to have one of his campaign managers say she is "fair game" and having to set THAT record straight by Kerry himself shows that things are out of control in the Kerry camp. However, it seems that it has backfired on him and could turn out to be a turning point.

Chelsea Clinton was a child. Cheneys carpet muncher is not a child.

Chelsea Clinton was a child. Cheneys carpet muncher is not a child.

Nor is she a politician......children should be left out of the campaigns. Now that Kerry has opened that door....things will get worse now.

Nor is she a politician......children should be left out of the campaigns. Now that Kerry has opened that door....things will get worse now.

Well, she is Cheney's campaign manager.

However, I feel there is a legitimate purpose in bringing her up in the debates. People are always trying to generalize it - I've seen it in this very thread. "It's a general thing. You shouldn't make it personal." Utterly wrong. The simple fact is that gays and lesbians aren't some amorphous cloud of people off in California. They are our sons, our daughters, our cousins. Our friends. Whatever it takes to get people to realize that "those people" actually exist is justified in my opinion.

If Kerry had said it thus, I think it might have actually worked :P

Nor is she a politician......children should be left out of the campaigns. Now that Kerry has opened that door....things will get worse now.

Thats right....and thats why Cheney should have stfu...but he did not.

Cheney politicised the issue by bringing it up in and using it in the election.

No bleating from the likes of you will change that fact. Cheney brought it out into the election and the Dems are going to use it.

And the exact samething would be done by the Reps if the positions were reversed.

I feel like a jackass for giving this any credence in the first page. The fact that this DUMBASS argument is draging on for twelve pages and this many days is just ridiculous. Congradulations, conservatives, you have managed to redirect the debate and the attention from the piss-poor performance of your candidates during the debates or any of the issues at hand. If you can't win there, create a red herring and hope we'll follow you off the cliff. I'm angry at myself by being one of the first over in the hopes that this would be a non-issue.

isnt the whole campain full of chep shots in one way or another any ways ?

:eek: :mp5: :sniper:

Nor is she a politician......children should be left out of the campaigns. Now that Kerry has opened that door....things will get worse now.

Ever heard of somebody named Edward Muskie, Bill? He had to drop out of his campaign for presidential nomination after political hostility towards his wife made him break down and cry on national television. Kerry hasn't "opened the door" to jack shit, and the Republicans should be happy the Kerry campaign isn't pointing out that Bush couldn't raise his own daughters well enough for them not to commit crimes.

This type of attack is not new, and not exclusive to either side. Here's a famous quote as support:
These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don't resent attacks, and my family doesn't resent attacks, but Fala does resent them.
-FDR, 1944

I feel like a jackass for giving this any credence in the first page. The fact that this DUMBASS argument is draging on for twelve pages and this many days is just ridiculous. Congradulations, conservatives, you have managed to redirect the debate and the attention from the piss-poor performance of your candidates during the debates or any of the issues at hand. If you can't win there, create a red herring and hope we'll follow you off the cliff. I'm angry at myself by being one of the first over in the hopes that this would be a non-issue.

That's funny. Most of the unbiased opinions of the political shows say Kerry won 1 of 3, Bush won 1 of 3, the two tied in one debate, and Cheney had the edge over Edwards in their debate. Of course if you want to take the opinions of those mental wizards who live to respond to the polls asking for immediate reaction, then Kerry won every debate he was ever involved in. Edwards too. Uh-oh, what if they debated each other? Liberal minds would be exploding everywhere. I must say, however, that the belief that Kerry won every debate leads me to a conclusion about many (though not all) liberals: send them into the library and they'll wind up liking the book with the new, fancy, shiny, colorful cover with the picture of the pretty people, instead of War & Peace or The Merchant of Venice (or something that actually has substance). Give them a pretty package that seems to offer the impossible and they'll buy right into it.

OK, now's the time for Dems to pitch in with their "well, um, at least liberals can read unlike that dumb Bush" or "Bush would choose the pop-up books" comebacks.

That's funny. Most of the unbiased opinions of the political shows say Kerry won 1 of 3, Bush won 1 of 3, the two tied in one debate, and Cheney had the edge over Edwards in their debate. Of course if you want to take the opinions of those mental wizards who live to respond to the polls asking for immediate reaction, then Kerry won every debate he was ever involved in. Edwards too. Uh-oh, what if they debated each other? Liberal minds would be exploding everywhere. I must say, however, that the belief that Kerry won every debate leads me to a conclusion about many (though not all) liberals: send them into the library and they'll wind up liking the book with the new, fancy, shiny, colorful cover with the picture of the pretty people, instead of War & Peace or The Merchant of Venice (or something that actually has substance). Give them a pretty package that seems to offer the impossible and they'll buy right into it.

OK, now's the time for Dems to pitch in with their "well, um, at least liberals can read unlike that dumb Bush" or "Bush would choose the pop-up books" comebacks.
Wow, are you seriously comparing Bush's performance to War and Peace and Merchant of Venice (a further intreseting choice given the problematic subject matter)-and saying that comparitively Kerry was the shiny cover? Really? Honestly? Okay. Wow. Even given that the RNC strategy involving Bush is his 'man of the people, simple' approach? And the criticism of Kerry is his 'ivory tower-ness'? Wow. What presidential race are you getting to watch?

Care to sight those 'unbiased' sources that give it 1-1-1?

Well, she is Cheney's campaign manager.

However, I feel there is a legitimate purpose in bringing her up in the debates. People are always trying to generalize it - I've seen it in this very thread. "It's a general thing. You shouldn't make it personal." Utterly wrong. The simple fact is that gays and lesbians aren't some amorphous cloud of people off in California. They are our sons, our daughters, our cousins. Our friends. Whatever it takes to get people to realize that "those people" actually exist is justified in my opinion.

If Kerry had said it thus, I think it might have actually worked :P

Excellently stated - I think this is the greatest point. One side seems to lean heavily on "us versus them" these days, and Kerry was right, both strategically and morally, to point out that some of you (read: Republicans) are them.

That's funny. Most of the unbiased opinions of the political shows say Kerry won 1 of 3, Bush won 1 of 3, the two tied in one debate, and Cheney had the edge over Edwards in their debate. Of course if you want to take the opinions of those mental wizards who live to respond to the polls asking for immediate reaction, then Kerry won every debate he was ever involved in. Edwards too. Uh-oh, what if they debated each other? Liberal minds would be exploding everywhere. I must say, however, that the belief that Kerry won every debate leads me to a conclusion about many (though not all) liberals: send them into the library and they'll wind up liking the book with the new, fancy, shiny, colorful cover with the picture of the pretty people, instead of War & Peace or The Merchant of Venice (or something that actually has substance). Give them a pretty package that seems to offer the impossible and they'll buy right into it.

OK, now's the time for Dems to pitch in with their "well, um, at least liberals can read unlike that dumb Bush" or "Bush would choose the pop-up books" comebacks.


If by "War and Peace" you mean "My Pet Goat..." xD

If by "War and Peace" you mean "My Pet Goat..." xD

Ahh...I was waiting for the "My Pet Goat" reference to be thrown out there by a Michael Moore disciple!! Bad, bad, bad President Bush for actually trying to interact with children AFTER he had been elected. He really is stupid. Doesn't he know you're only supposed to do that type of thing right before an election? John Kerry knows. That's why he's now seen frequenting Baptist churches and - oh, I'm sorry, maybe I'm assuming too much. Perhaps he actually goes to hang out with African-Americans quite often. Too bad he didn't actually hire any of them until minorities started to question why they weren't represented on his staff. But, back to the "Goat." You know, people are right, Bush shouldn't have stayed in that classroom. He should have stood up, ripped off his shirt, and started screaming, "Aliens are coming and we're all going to die...or get an anal-probe." Of course Kerry probably wouldn't have been concerned about the probe because he's so full of shit they wouldn't have gotten too far with it. Seriously though, what was Bush supposed to do at that time? He did exactly what he should have. Take a couple minutes, gather your thoughts, think about what you're going to say, and don't get the people around you (like the little kids) into a state of panic. But, perhaps liberals think John Kerry would have handled it better. They might be right: "What? We've just been what? Ladies and gentlemen and young children, I have just received word that we have been the victim of a terrorist attack. I must be going now, but, in the meantime, I ask that you all keep your fingers crossed that France and Russia can find these people for us so we can prosecute the evil people in court. By the way, I'm still going to give you all healthcare. And I'm planning on giving everyone free gas, an SUV, the middle-class will never pay taxes again, if you've ever had a pet die I'll raise it from the dead, and everyone will have a job paying $150,000 within a month. Now, as I leave you, please enjoy the delightful sounds of Barbara Streisand..."

Ahh...I was waiting for the "My Pet Goat" reference to be thrown out there by a Michael Moore disciple!! Bad, bad, bad President Bush for actually trying to interact with children AFTER he had been elected. He really is stupid. Doesn't he know you're only supposed to do that type of thing right before an election? John Kerry knows. That's why he's now seen frequenting Baptist churches and - oh, I'm sorry, maybe I'm assuming too much. Perhaps he actually goes to hang out with African-Americans quite often. Too bad he didn't actually hire any of them until minorities started to question why they weren't represented on his staff. But, back to the "Goat." You know, people are right, Bush shouldn't have stayed in that classroom. He should have stood up, ripped off his shirt, and started screaming, "Aliens are coming and we're all going to die...or get an anal-probe." Of course Kerry probably wouldn't have been concerned about the probe because he's so full of shit they wouldn't have gotten too far with it. Seriously though, what was Bush supposed to do at that time? He did exactly what he should have. Take a couple minutes, gather your thoughts, think about what you're going to say, and don't get the people around you (like the little kids) into a state of panic. But, perhaps liberals think John Kerry would have handled it better. They might be right: "What? We've just been what? Ladies and gentlemen and young children, I have just received word that we have been the victim of a terrorist attack. I must be going now, but, in the meantime, I ask that you all keep your fingers crossed that France and Russia can find these people for us so we can prosecute the evil people in court. By the way, I'm still going to give you all healthcare. And I'm planning on giving everyone free gas, an SUV, the middle-class will never pay taxes again, if you've ever had a pet die I'll raise it from the dead, and everyone will have a job paying $150,000 within a month. Now, as I leave you, please enjoy the delightful sounds of Barbara Streisand..."


All that over one comment?

Dude...

IT WAS A JOKE.

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/entertainment/clown.gif
http://www.corston-oliver.com/Simon/CookIslands/Small/ChickenCrossingRoad.jpg
http://www.mikerobertsonline.com/seinfeld.jpg
http://www.delos.fantascienza.com/delos57/img/christian/battlefield-earth.jpg
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0202/features/images/0202_feature-punchline-kant.jpg

All that over one comment?

Dude...

IT WAS A JOKE.

My bad. It's just that I work with someone who has taken Michael Moore's "documentary" as gospel and constantly brings up "My Pet Goat." It gets quite annoying when one of his only arguments for not liking Bush is the "My Pet Goat" thing. He's one of those people who can't think for himself and needs to get all of his opinions from newspapers, movies, tv, etc. Even when it comes to something like sports, he's always spitting out the views and opinions of local journalists. As I said, it's quite annoying!! So...sorry for going off after one joke.

My bad. It's just that I work with someone who has taken Michael Moore's "documentary" as gospel and constantly brings up "My Pet Goat." It gets quite annoying when one of his only arguments for not liking Bush is the "My Pet Goat" thing. He's one of those people who can't think for himself and needs to get all of his opinions from newspapers, movies, tv, etc. Even when it comes to something like sports, he's always spitting out the views and opinions of local journalists. As I said, it's quite annoying!! So...sorry for going off after one joke.

Heh, it's alright. Sarcasm isn't always the easiest thing to portray online :p

Heh, it's alright. Sarcasm isn't always the easiest thing to portray online :p

Now that is for damn sure.