Most Americans believe that a candidates personal history, every deep dark corner, is fair game to be trotted out and explored. But how far does that reach?

 

Spouse?

Girlfriend / boyfriends?

Children?

Parents?

Counsins?

Close friends? (perhaps the most interesting, you cannot pick your relatives)

 

  MOON TOWNSHIP, Pa., Oct. 13 -- Lynne V. Cheney, wife of Vice President Cheney, accused John F. Kerry on Wednesday night of "a cheap and tawdry political trick" and said he "is not a good man" after he brought up their daughter's homosexuality at the final presidential debate.

 

Mary Cheney, one of the vice president's two daughters and an official of the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about her lesbian status. The candidates were asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, and President Bush did not mention Mary Cheney. Then Kerry said, "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."

I've heard pundits on both sides say this was low, but I really don't see it as such, given that mary Cheney is openly gay and that her orientation was openly discussed just last week by Dick Cheney in the Cheney/Edwards debate. As such, it is hardly digging up dirt, although I don't know how effective it was to personalize the topic.

 

If anything, If I were Bush I would have been kicking myself if I had answered a question about freedoms of gay Americans and FORGOT to personalize it by being the one to say, 'see we don't hate gays, we've got one in our own camp and we love her.'

 

Noboday was outed, and the topic has already come up in the debates, so where is the (moral) low blow? Politically it might be a shot because it reminds people that even the Bush reelection campaign can have one of 'them' on it, and maybe we have better things to do as a nation than to figure out how to fold/spindle/mutilate the constitution to make sure certain rights are denied t certain people.

Except Dick Cheney didn't bring up his daughter. John Edwards did.

Except Dick Cheney didn't bring up his daughter.  John Edwards did.

With class, IMO. To which DC thanked him for the "kind words"

 

But he didn't bring it out. That was done long ago.

 

I don't think it was low. I think DC's wife is a prude and has no business commenting about it anyway. She should just sit down and STHU.

Has Cheney commented on the President's desire for a constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage?

Has Cheney commented on the President's desire for a constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage?

He kind of danced around it in the debate, and there has been a little prior dancing around the semantics of 'union' versus 'marriage,' and how something that the Bushies clearly held to be a matter best left to the states 4 years ago is now an issue warranting a change in the federal constitution.

 

On that subject, if all it came down to was semantics and a gay 'union' afforded a couple EVERY legal and social right that a straight 'marriage' does, I don't care what it is called. Regardless, there is no room in the constitution for a discriminatory amendment to legally enforce that marriages are only for certain loving, committed couples but not others.

Except Dick Cheney didn't bring up his daughter.  John Edwards did.

Correct.

Correct.

You are both incorrect. Gwen Ifill was the one to initially bring the Cheney family situation up in posing the question to Cheney:

 

IFILL: 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?

 

There's no big secret, and Edwards didn't spill the beans. In fact, only Edwards recognized Mary Cheney by name, while Cheney declined to advertise his family situation - for fear of alienating a Christian Right voter base perhaps. His answer remained very impersonal, and he did not even acknowledge Ifill's allusion to his daughter.

 

Cheney also failed to answer the question as to his Administration's position on the matter.

 

He said he'd rather see it be a state's rights issue (like Bush did 4 years ago). But then in the same breath said that Massacheusetts' (am I even close on that spelling?) decision to try and make it a state matter once and for all at the level of a change in the state constitution was "the wrong way to go" in the eyes of the President. I don't know if he says it's wrong because a state is now doing what most people feel the states should be deciding on, or because the change was made at the constitutional level rather than just a change in law.

 

At the end of his answer he said, "Now, he [W] sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president."

Was that before or after Edwards tribute to the Cheneys?

In fact, only Edwards recognized Mary Cheney by name, while Cheney declined to advertise his family situation - for fear of alienating a Christian Right voter base perhaps.

That's so wrong, Jim. :headshake

Was that before or after Edwards tribute to the Cheneys?

Immediately before. Edwards "tribute" was in his 90 second response to the same question.

That's so wrong, Jim.  :headshake

I don't know. I know Cheney has to bite his tongue on the issue, when he most definately personally believes it should not be a federal manner but one for individual states to decide.

 

The big hulabaloo about a constitutional gay marriage ban is designed precisely to court the Conservative Christian voter base that thinks gays should not be given equal rights in social matters because homosexuality is morally wrong. Cheney, as second in command but with his family situation, regardless of how much he obviously does love his daughter, is in a tough situation. He has to stand by the President's decisions and can't question these things in public, so it it probably best that the issue doesn't come up on a personal level.

I don't know.  I know Cheney has to bite his tongue on the issue, when he most definately personally believes it should not be a federal manner but one for individual states to decide.

 

The big hulabaloo about a constitutional gay marriage ban is designed precisely to court the Conservative Christian voter base that thinks gays should not be given equal rights in social matters because homosexuality is morally wrong.  Cheney, as second in command but with his family situation, regardless of how much he obviously does love his daughter, is in a tough situation.  He has to stand by the President's decisions and can't question these things in public, so it it probably best that the issue doesn't come up on a personal level.

I think the personal level question of it is the problem. If GW had stood up and questioned Teresa Heinz hiring Ken Lay to run her late husbands charity, would that have been too appropriate if ethics had come up? Why make it a personal issue in the first place? Unless Dick Cheney brought up his daughter, or was parading her around on the campaign trail I don't see her being fair game. Leave the kids, wives etc out of it, unless the campaign makes them fair game.

I think the personal level question of it is the problem.  If GW had stood up and questioned Teresa Heinz hiring Ken Lay to run her late husbands charity, would that have been too appropriate if ethics had come up?  Why make it a personal issue in the first place?  Unless Dick Cheney brought up his daughter, or was parading her around on the campaign trail I don't see her being fair game.  Leave the kids, wives etc out of it, unless the campaign makes them fair game.

But nobody took a cheap shot at anybody, there was no cheap shot. Should we tell Gwen Ifill not to reference Cheney's own past references to his family?

 

Gay rights is an issue this election. I think it is an interesting twist that the anti-gay rights Bush Adminsitration has a second in command who has to sidestep the issue as much as possible so it looks like there is unity in that camp when there is not.

But nobody took a cheap shot at anybody, there was no cheap shot.  Should we tell Gwen Ifill not to reference Cheney's own past references to his family?

 

Gay rights is an issue this election.  I think it is an interesting twist that the anti-gay rights Bush Adminsitration has a second in command who has to sidestep the issue as much as possible so it looks like there is unity in that camp when there is not.

I think people believe the mention of someone's children is a cheap shot.

I honestly don't get the big deal over any of this.

I'm sure we'd all be shocked if we knew how many famous, well known people were really in closet homosexuals.

Who honestly cares.

I think people believe the mention of someone's children is a cheap shot.

You mean like all the battering Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton got at the hands of the press??

You mean like all the battering Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton got at the hands of the press??

And the Bush twins, and Ronny Reagan etc... Until they start joining the parents on the campaign trail, they don't need to be a part of the campaign.

I guess it all depends on how important hypocrisy is in this campaign. Does it matter to anyone that Cheney will support the President over his daughter?

In August at a campaign stop, Cheney discussed his daughter at great length so it was common knowledge

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGHQ8DV6Q1.DTL

I guess it all depends on how important hypocrisy is in this campaign. Does it matter to anyone that Cheney will support the President over his daughter?

Yes it does, although his daughter is a free-thinking adult and is on the campaign staff as well so go figure.

Where was Lynne Cheney and her right wing shilling when Alan Keyes called her daughter a "selfish hedonist" among other things?