Friday, October 15, 2004

The Lesbian Controversy...

For those of you out there saying that it was 'no big deal' that Kerry told the world that Mary Cheney was a lesbian because 'everyone already knew that'....picture this...

Let's say it went down THIS way on a question about health care to president Bush:

"Well Bob, health care prices are a serious issue and a problem. The problem is that if we went to a government run program, such as Senator Kerry is suggesting, medicine and care would be rationed. This may be a problem for things that are important to individuals, but not deemed as an 'imminent threat' by the health care community. I am sure if you talk to John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth Edwards...who is, uh, overweight...she would tell you that this is important to her to be able to get care for her eating problem and since she was born that way shouldn't be judged for it....or denied her rights for care because of it..."


This is THE SAME THING that happened on Wednesday night. Bush wouldn't be telling the public 'something they didn't already know'. Mary Cheney has to TELL people she's gay...but we can LOOK at Elizabeth Edwards and know that she's overweight...would that make it OK for Bush to say that in a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE on NATIONAL TELEVISION?!! NO!!!
The media would be roaring -it would be front page (above the fold) on EVERY paper -it would be the leading story on every network...

Please, stop being hypocrites and admit this was really terrible and a gross misuse/abuse of power (not to mention political ambition)!

Thank you.

24 comments:

riceburner147 said...

You GO GIRL !!!

ps everyone knows Ala is a mass murderer.........right ?
is this OK to say ? oops

hey, really, great post and simile (is that right, i always confuse them)

Kat said...

Actually, my example was going to be one of his daughters, that I think is anorexic or his first wife, who went coocoos for coco puffs after a short marriage to our man Kerry. And of course, I would have framed it in regards to healthcare costs for caring for such people and the prioritizing of care that occurs under socialized medicine.

riceburner147 said...

Ala: Just saw Team America....never saw a movie b4 where so many people were screaming out loud laughing (incl me) it ROCKS. Only thing was the lanquage was really rough and i saw it with Amy (prob would have saw someting else if i had known) bring tissues if you see it.

tescosuicide said...

Wow - she is quite the chunker huh??

Bigandmean said...

Bush: "And I want to commend Senator Kerry for his getting married a second time when the first one didn't work out. He obviously believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman since both of his marriage partners so far have been women, as far as we know".

I don't believe Kerry's explanation that he was only trying to compliment the Vice-President. What he was trying to do was suggest to some Christian conservatives that they had a good reason to stay home and not vote at all.

I don't believe Kerry either when he says that his Mother, on her death bed emphasized the importance of "integrity, integrity, integrity". If it did happen that way, does that mean she thought he still needed to to be lectured on that subject though he was 50 plus years old?

I'd bet what she actually said to him was something like "John, you idiot, stand up straight and quit picking your nose".

The Oracle said...

Your clarity of perception is inspiring.

Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologist said...

Once this election os over Mssrs. Kerry and Edwards and their "signifigant others" can all join Panderers Anonymous.

These two men and their wives are despicable people.

Paul G. said...

Your fantasy might have some creedence had Edwards previously brought the discussion of his wifes weight into the political discourse as Cheney did his own daughters sexual preferences on August 24th in a town hall meeting in Iowa.

There is a credibility and character gap that grows wider each time the Cheneys speak.

ALa said...

Paul: Nice attempt at the already regurgitated DNC spin...but as you said it was a TOWNHALL meeting...someone ASKED him a question...he didn't say.."Hey! Vote for George Bush and by the way were you all aware that my daughter is a Lez....?!"
Come on Paul...I have polled THREE gay friends-- ALL Kerry supporters -who thought this was wrong...stop making excuses --that's what's keeping the story alive.

ALa said...

Pat Cadell (DNC stategist) said this was a VERY CALCULATED move by Kerry's campaign...not to embarrass Cheney with the evangelicals (like we all thought), but to get it out there to the minorities. Jesse Jackson told crowds the other day "Not to let the subject of gay marriage be an issue in this election" Apparently Blacks and Hispanics are the largest majorities against gay marriage (as against is as the born-agains) and the Dems are afraid this issue could steal their votes with minorities...This was saying to minorities...Don't trust them...Cheney's daughter is gay....

Paul G. said...

A town hall meeting promoting himeself and President Bush for re-election during the course of a Presidential campaign - yes that townhall meeting.
The question was, "what are your opinions on gay marriage rights?" The answer was "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

So to answer your assertion that it wasn't what it was, is you are wrong.
This isn't DNC spin, it is RNC spin.

You should also be aware, if you were getting your head outside the spin zone that Pat Cadell has not been a DNC strategist for a long long time and has been a self promoting pollster for hire for quite some time - he has no connection to the current activities of DNC strategies, and has been manufacturing his 'opinion' into fact for over five years.

WONK WONK WONK

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

Paul -Your making yourself look silly --who cares if Cadell is working for himself now? He is a self-proclaimed Democrat...maybe he should be ousted because he believes in Capitolism?
Edwards wife is campaigning for him --he brought her into the election process...we SEE that she is overweight --is it OK to talk about it?
This is ridiculous and it's making me mad...I am quite sure that you know that Mary Cheney did not want her sexuality to be broadcast to 50 million people during a Presidential debate --to say otherwise is just assinine. I know many people that are 'out' to some people but not to everyone i theor lives --it is their business to tell people and NO ONE elses.
If Kerry wanted to put a 'personal face' on the problem...why didn't he talk about people he actually KNOWS --like Ghepphart's daughter, Rosie O'Donnell -or his own campaign manager ...Mary Beth Cahill?
NO ONE in the real world agrees with you --not even gays in your own party....so stop.

Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologist said...

Paul

ALA is right. You're just trying to be offensive. Maybe Kerry should have someone like you on his ticket.

tescosuicide said...

Maybe he is just offended by the 'overwieght' comments.... or maybe he's a lesbian.

leftyjones said...

If you consider that being gay is normal and not an aberration then why should the comments bother you? What if Kerry had mentioned Cheney's other daughter and said something along the lines,

"We're all God's children, Bob," Mr. Kerry responded. "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a heterosexual and married, she would tell that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Who would be screaming about that?
Would anyone care if anyone was described as being married or being true to what they were born as?

It seems to me like the oddity here is that the very same people who support amending the constitution and denying spousal rights to people who are gay....(and many of them because they consider that people who are gay are an ABOMINATION according to the Bible) are also feigning some mock horror about Mary Cheney having been violated.

If you don't find being gay to be shameful, why is it so taboo to talk about?
If the issue is that she is the child of a candidate and shouldn't be discussed for any reason....I can understand that. I would say that she is not the usual case as she is a high ranking part of the official campaign but i don't really think that matters too much....I can see why her being mentioned would seem unfair. But....we usually think of mentioning relatives of candidates as unfair when they are portrayed in a negative or slanderous way which was not the case here at all....even if Kerry did not need to bring her up.

If we truly want to avoid the spin here, I would venture to say that far less republicans were upset by the fact that she was mentioned than were upset that she was mentioned as being gay because they feel their may be some voter backlash against Cheney from strict religious conservatives. If that is the case, my thought would be that who would really want the vote of such small minded hate mongers anyway?

ALa said...

Lefty- I know you were talking generally, but as you know I don't think being gay is an abomination (other than the fact that we are all an abomination in God's eyes without Jesus -but that's another matter)... I am disappointed that the marriage amendment wasn't proposed with a provision for civil unions -but I realize that it is an election year and we need to get the evangelical voters out.
I thought the mention of Mary Cheney was to tarnish Cheney to the far right too, but alas, I find out it was actually directed at minority Democrat voters... The Kerry campaign realizes that minorities are VERY against gay marriage (Black & Hispanics like 97% against it) --and they are afraid it will hurt them this election. It was their way of saying...hey this administration SAYS they are opposed to gay marriage, but how can you trust them when the Vice President has a gay daughter...
I also think it would have been just as inappropriate if Kerry had mentioned Liz Cheney's sexuality...I also think it was just as inappropriate when Alan Keyes called her (Mary) a selfish hedonist...

Archie Levine said...

Please, why is everyone focusing on this comment rather than substantive issues?

Republicans, and George Bush in particular are the ones who have made the politics of sexuality an issue of Constitutional importance. If it isn't "impolite" to change the constitution to limit the rights and freedoms of homosexuals, why is it impolite to point out that the candidates pushing those limitations have children who are gay?

Why is it ok to attack Kerry for a positive comment regarding Mary Cheney and at the same time continue to actively support Alan Keyes who has viciously attacked her and all other homosexuals?

It is ridiculous to claim that Cheney was only answering a question when he brought up his daughter's sexuality and not acknowledge that Kerry was also answering a question when it was brought up. At least Kerry made his position on homosexuality being a choice clear...do we really want a President re-writing the Constitution on this issue when he admits in the debate that he DOESN'T KNOW if homosexuality is a choice?

If he doesn't know, and there is the slightest possiblity that it is NOT a choice, then aren't a constitutional ban on gay marriage and all the nation's sodomy laws reprehensible?

Instead of going after Kerry because he points out the inconsistency of your candidate's position, perhaps you'd be better served to press George and Co. on clarifying those positions.

Just a thought

Jensun_Clemike said...

I bet Kerry wishes now that he hadn't brought Mary Cheney into the debates. That comment has all ready come back to haunt him many times over and will undoubtedly cost him votes. Why would anyone do such a thing?

folkgirl said...

Hey, ALa - yeah, I think you're off your rocker most of the time. But I agree that Kerry should not have brought the lesbian daughter up.

Granted, when the question came up, it was the first thing that popped into my head. And when the line came out of Kerry's mouth, my husband and I both went, "uh-oh". It really just screamed of using a very personal issue in someone's family for personal gain. And really, he's totally pussed out on the issue anyway: How could a mother and father deny a child their right to love, happiness and marriage - gay or not?

If someone could please answer this question for me (seriously): if you right-wingers are so hell bent on government not regulating peoples lives (as per the GOPunk folks - the term "punk" has got to be used very loosely here), how can you justify using the constitution to define marriage and what a woman can do with her body?

ALa said...

Folkgirl:
I won't speal for others, but this is my answer...
1) I know everyone says this, but I honestly have people VERY close to me that are gay...they know that I don't thinkk they should be able to get married --it's not a Constitutional right. The State took over doing it because all the legal entanglements that a Civil Union would provide (I am 100% OK with CUs) Marriage is an inherantly religious institution --opening it up to gays will then open it up to poligimists and even Joe Strangedude that wants to marry his sister. I think gay couples should have EVERY legal right afforded to straight couples if they want it --they just can't have the word 'marriage'...
2) I think a woman should be able to do WHATEVER she wants with HER body...peircings, tattoos, tied tubes, removed uterous, S & M , suicide...go for it---It's when women start trying to do things with someone else's body that I have a problem with it... It's weird how the arguement years ago was that it wasn't a baby --now there isn't a doctor out there that will say it's not a baby...the arguement now is --it's a baby, but it's in me so I should still have the right to kill it...I think it's sick quite frankly...40 MILLION babies since Roe V. Wade... Over 3,000 A DAY (more than dies on 9/11 EVERY DAY....). Now that is a human rights crisis!
Personally, I have a solution to abortion --a scientist just has to figure out how to get it to work. WE take all the thousands of women that are on the five year waiting list for adoption and implant the fetus from the 'mother' that doesn't want it into the infertile woman...It would be the same as an abortion in the sense the baby would be gone from them--but it wouldn't have to be sacrificed for their sins...and all the couples in heartbreak over infertility could have a child.
LIke I said, I am only speaking for myself -as there are no GOP 'talking points' for this and different people believe different things.

folkgirl said...

On the marriage issue:

My husband and I were were wed by a Justice of the Peace because neither one of us are religious in any organized way. Are you telling me that technically, I am not "married" since it did not take place in a religious setting (please be careful how you answer this)?

I'll post something about the second part of this debat since I am at work and don't want to offend anyone who happens to walk past and get nosey...

ALa said...

Folkgirl...of course you're married because that's the law of the land now...my man and I were married by a JOP too...my church wouldn't marry us because he is a heathen...hahaha...we couln't be 'unequallly yoked'...But see that's my point --I didn't bitch about it because what I was doing was against the teachings of the church -their teachings aren't set up to screw me out of a church wedding...they are taken from the Bible and that is the premise of their existance...I went to the JOP and it was all good. In France everyone has a civil union -unless the specifically want a religious church marriage.

riceburner147 said...

folkgirl: i am certainly not speaking for Ala (as she knows we differ on this subject) but just sticking my 2 cents in because, well, i can. IMHO, marriage, which no one can deny WAS an institution of religion, was long ago given into the hands of the civil authorities. Witness the fact that one CANNOT be married in this country without the state. A member of the clergy can perform a ceremony OR one can go to the civil authority (as you described) but, in both cases there is no legal marriage without the state issuing a document recognizing the union. In our pluralistic system i believe this is the best way, to give "choice" to those wishing to be burdened (oops) i mean joined together for life, or until the first financial crisis, which ever comes first. :>)

Amen sister