WP: VP’s daughter on dad, homosexuality – washingtonpost.com Highlights – MSNBC.com — Here’s a guaranteed best-seller. This woman will be everywhere over the next few days. Apparently she pulls few punches.
She thought Edwards, whom she ridicules for his fixation on his hair, “was complete and total slime.” She quotes her sister calling Kerry a “complete and total sleazeball.” She herself called him a profanity, she recounts with relish, after Kerry invoked the fact that she is a lesbian in non-response to a question during the presidential debate about whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.
But how does she really feel?
To this day I find myself wondering if Kerry was the best the party had to offer. You knew all along he didn’t have a chance unless Bush really blew it.
RTaylor: Dan Rather blew it! I always thought that guy was an idiot.
No I don’t think the story was bogus. I think that it was made to look bogus so that the right wing could defuse the issue of Bush’s cowardice and discredit the left wing part of the media.
Wow coming from that family I would have thought she would be less sensitive to sleazy people. Kerry and Edwards were certainly up there on the slime meter but NIST now uses Dick Cheney to calibrate that meter.
As opposed to having daddy for the sake of politics supporting the anti-gay religious right agenda?
Who’s the sleeze?
actually, I thought it was pretty sleazy of Kerry to invoke Cheney’s daughter, too. not Swift Boat sleazy, but sleazy.
Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was not a secret. Dickie Cheney mentioned it himself during the campaign. So why was it sleazy of Kerry to toss it to Bush? It was the right wing religious votes Bush and Cheney were courting.
As it happens, the genetic nature of homosexuality was the very subject Kerry was discussing when he brought up Mary Cheney. Both candidates had been asked, “Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?” Bush had said he didn’t know, and then, after some vague words about tolerance and dignity, affirmed his support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Then Kerry spoke:
We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
…even Cheney won’t really speak out against this administration’s exploitation of the gay-marriage issue to score cheap political points. Some father he is.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108318/
The best single word to describe Mary Cheney and her book is HYPOCRITE. But then so are so many Republicans and their supporters.
8. obviously, Kerry was tossing that out there trying to seperate Dumbya from his RR base by pointing out that Cheney’s daughter was gay.
so, you don’t think it is sleazy to use your opponent’s daughter’s sexual orientation to score political points?
How does she really feel?
Give me a chance and I’ll tell you.
#9, doug. No. Simply because Cheney had already opened the door and the whole Republican Party was courting the conservative religious types with a homophobic stance. To show some human face to the evil picture portrayed by the Republicans should not have been a problem, unless you think it is a terrible thing to be homosexual.
10 axe, you’re sick
9. huh, so in order for Kerry not to have been justified in bringing it up (in a debate against Bush, btw, not Cheney), Cheney would have had to keep it secret, act like he was ashamed? Otherwise, its fair game?
and I dont agree that daddy’s politics make daughter’s sexual orientation grist for a debate. I am reminded of how reporters pursued homophobe candidate Alan Keyes in IL, pestering him to say something about Ms. Cheney. then, when he inevitably did, it was “neener, neener, neener! you said something bad about the VP candidate’s daughter!”
how edifying.
no, I don’t think it is terrible to be gay – it is, however, terribly predictable for you to have raised that – but aren’t their any boundaries? and the whole “put a face to …” thing is just a rationale for exploiting people. homophobes aren’t going to be swayed by such tactics. they know gays are people and they hate them anyway.
Not sure what your point is, #10. I don’t remember either John Kerry or John Edwards coming out in favor of gay rights or gay marriage. And what was the point of bringing up Mary Cheney’s name? Don’t they have any gays or lesbians in their families or circles of friends that they can cite?
How can being gay be Genetic? If it was then how would the Genes pass? They’re gay they dont reproduce and the argument that they changed there minds and switched and had a famiy defeats the “gay gene” theory itself
Does this mean dick cheney is gay or is it his wife? im so disoriented.
This is so bizarre. This regime has been totally discredited in every facet of its governance. The team in power is thoroughly corrupt and disasterously unqualified. Lies, cover-ups, and propaganda have, in the end, failed to keep their ship afloat, and they will go down in history as utter failure, in both practical and moral terms. Fully 70% of the public recognizes all this, finally. This is Mary Cheney’s team. And yet people honor her courage for objecting to ONE blood-soaked plank in their rotten platform?
#14 so if your parents have brown eyes, you can’t be born with blue eyes?
So if Dick Gephardt had been selected as vice-president instead of JOhn Edwards, and Bush had said the same thing about Gephardt’s daughter you would have thought it was OK?
#17 That argument would work if homosexuality hadn’t existed for thousands of years. If you create an atmosphere where no one with brown eyes were able to have children anymore, you would be without any brown eye’d people in the course of generations. Instead, what we have is either a steady ammount (give or take 5%) or possibly an increase; as some would argue. Over the course of thousands of years traits are bred out of a race…..if they are genetic.
I know, I know, the next argument coming back is the repression of society forcing these people to have *shudderstraightshudder* sex. Oh the horror of forcing them to reproduce….passing their homosexual genes along.
You know, there is a middle road in this argument. You could state that it’s developmental. That for some hormonal reason, development led to this. This would both state that it is not genetic, and that it’s not a choice.
Things aren’t always black and white.
#7 – I didn’t say Dick supported the anti-gay agenda. I said he supported the “anti-gay religious right agenda”. And yes I am consistant – just like you are Paul. By supporting the religious right, he furthers its agenda. I guess he’s a stealth anti-gay.
#18 – in politics everything is far. Just like its fair to say a man who was actually in combat was a coward as oppose to one who few in Texas, chased skirt and snorted blow.
My problem with Kerry is he whined like a prison bitch about the swift boat sleaze thing instead of calling Bush out for the deserter and liar he is and calling the swift boat assholes liars like he should of.
BTW – is Gephardt’s daughter gay? I didn’t know (or care).
If only Bush were as enlightened as Cheney is, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But because Bush is still superstitious that same-sex attraction is the sinful yielding to satanic temptation (and superstitious about losing the support of the Religious “Far-Wrong”), we will continue to have this political football to kick around. As with football, everyone who plays this game tends to come out a little bit bruised, and some players end up badly injured.
In Biblical times, the conventional wisdom was that birth defects in children were God’s punishment to sinful parents. Who among us wouldn’t consider that to be one of the more harmful of all superstitions? Delving deeper into the human genetic code, and continuing our studies of hormonal influences on early development may one day relegate some of the widely held beliefs about homosexuality to the realm of outdated, baseless superstition. That will be a good day not just for America, but for the human race.
#18: Yes. If you look at the quote in #8, there was nothing offensive about it. In fact, I though he should have mentioned them both so it wouldn’t come off as a political gotcha.
#22: Bush is actually said to be gay tolerant as well. However, I don’t put that to his credit because he panders to the gay bashers, so if you get the same policies either way, what difference does it make? In fact, it’s worse because he knows better and is doing it just for politics.
Calin: You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Calin – You’re forgetting about recesive genes and mutated genes. And then there’s the whole concept (which I admittedly don’t fully understand) of where a gene could be passed down for generations not showing itself until it encounters another gene or other source that activates it. In other words, one parent provides this gene while the other parent contributes the activating gene or whatever, or it is some outside factor (chemical exposure, etc) that activates it. Not saying this is what’s happening, just that you are limiting yourself too much to your simple scenario. The operations of genes is far more complex.
Oh, by the way, you might find this article interesting about homosexuality found in other species
Gay animals controversy..click here
Seems unlike one could attribute two gay penguins to their upbringing.
I did not limit my response to upbringing. It could just as easily be an environmental factor while in the womb which activates, or deactivates particular hormones.
I did think on recessive genes….which brown eyes would qualify. However, at one time it was genetic for us to walk bent over…..and no one today is born that way. That’s the beauty of evolution. Over time, recesive genes basically disapear….they are “bred out” of the species. We have done it to dozens of species (dogs, cats, horses, cows etc.etc.) since we have been here. Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of man (or at least as far back as our written records go). If it was pure genetics, it would have been “bred out” of the species long ago. Of course, that’s in a vaccuum….society has in fact forced people to supress homosexuality and many of these people have had children over the thousands of years we’ve existed.
However, as we weed out the stigma of homosexuality, it will be in essense bred out of the speices. Homosexuals count as between 1-5% of the total populations, and it’s a small minority of that population that choose to have children (through artificial insemination or renting a womb). That is, of course, if it is pure genetics (standard primary vs recesive genes).
Likewise I doubt mutated genes would account for such a large minority spread out over the population as a whole…..throughout time.
The point of my original post is that it may be neither a choice, nor genetic. By setting yourself in either of the two camps, you are limiting yourself to one of those two options.
#21.
No the swifties were the liars. There was a great web site but up in rebuttal where they actual tracked the locations of all the swifties that claimed they were there. The closest one got was in a different boat that was in the area. All the rest were in other locations. I don’t know (or care) if the sites still up or not. Bill Maher also brought this up when he interviewed the head swifty scumbag on his HBO show.
#29 – I didn’t say Maher was unbiased. I said he interviewed this guy and it was obvious he was lying.
The bottom line is I want Duh and Dick out. I want them out, embarrassed, discredited and preferably in jail with DeLay for all the crimes they are responsible for. If it happens tomorrow or one day before someone else takes over – great – fine by me.
If you feel the same about Clinton or Democrats, fine do what you think you must, it’s a (well was before illegal wiretaps) free country. Go for it.
#32, if your best argument in Bush’s favor is that he’s been ineffectual in accomplishing some of his stated social goals, then I quite agree. Given what his objectives were, impotence in achieving them is definitely his best quality. I hope he has equal lack of success in the future. I only wish he didn’t embolden fellow proponents of those goals to continue seeking their enactment.
By the way, you seem to be implying failure a bit too soon on the question of abortion rights. That success may be just around the corner when a properly framed case reaches the Supreme Court. In any case, he’s already achieved some success in this area, as a result of executive orders in which the Congress plays no role. For instance, on Bush’s first day of business in 2001, he imposed the Global Gag Rule to withdraw federal aid from any foreign clinics that engage in nearly any activity relating to abortion. Few people know the power of money better than Bush.
#32: Assorted states passing amendments to their state constitutions. The White House consulted with Dobson privately about the Harriet Miers nomination, so they give him inside access at the very least. Senate leaders speak at his conferences.
The president is the head of his party. He’s responsible for its direction, especially considering that the party has followed him almost lockstep until very recently. If he stands idly by while the rest of his party exploits the gay bashers, and throws them the occasional encouragement like the constitutional amendment, I’m plenty comfortable with saying he supports the position. If the entire party revs up against it and treats it as a major issue, him just being tacit is enough because he can change it. He doesn’t not because he believes it, but because he wants those people on his side for the elections. That’s called pandering.
And a lack of success on certain fronts doesn’t in any way excuse it. He supports the constitutional amendment even if it won’t pass. And as I said, the groups are pushing it further now with gay adoption and teachers. Abortion? Look at South Carolina. They banned it with the explicit intent to have it go to the Supreme Court and challenge Roe v. Wade. And why did they feel the need to do that? Because they think it might go through now with Roberts and Alito on the bench, both Bush appointees.
He does pander. What about Intelligent Design? Abstinence-only education? What about Plan B, which the FDA originally said should be sold over the counter? Witholding money from international organizations that support abortion? That was an executive order, it falls squarely on his plate. If you want to go back further, how about the CDC web site that was changed to be more appealing to the fundies, such as focusing on condom failure rates, promoting abstinance, and dropping mention of a study that said sex education doesn’t increase sexual activity in the young?
Have you ever noticed how lesbians tend to live together and adopt a daughter, and have an all-female family? Point out a lesbian and I can guarantee she been assaulted or abused, hence the aversion to men/males. It’s all so obvious once you actually start listening to these people.
i’m telling you that bush does not pander to the religious right. that’s correct. only witch-hunting, drooling lefties get their panties in a bunch because bush mentions the word “jesus” occasionally.
Damnation !!! No wonder it was so uncomfortable in this chair.
So it’s not pandering if it’s not instantaneous and successful? That seems to be a new definition of the word to me.
I said he panders to religious right, your response is that he hasn’t radicalized the country on those issues in his six years. That’s not what I said he did, I said he panders. He throws them sops because he wants their support. Even something purely rhetorical can be a pander. That’s why I say it doesn’t matter if he’s successful. He and his party actively court their vote, simple as that. Going by whether they’ve achieved anything radical is weaseling out by setting an impossibly high standard on the definition of the word pander.
Am I screaming the sky is falling? No, you wanted examples of how he panders, and that’s what you got. I think the Roe v. Wade challenge will probably be unsuccessul, though there’s a small chance it won’t be. The fact is the people who would challenge it feel like Bush is on their side, as they’re pursuing a new challenge directly because of his nominees. The further erosion of gay rights I’m more worried about because they have been successful on the state level in the past, and the party as a whole is very happy to exploit the issue for electoral gain. But I’ve argued before that I think they’re on the wrong side of history because polls show opposition to gay rights is a function of age, with the oldest generation being the most opposed and the youngest being the most supportive. That’s going to completely change the dynamic in 20-30 years. But they can still do plenty of damage until then.