Today on Blogcritics
Home » Both Kerry, Edwards Use Dick Cheney’s Lesbian Daughter As A Political Prop

Both Kerry, Edwards Use Dick Cheney’s Lesbian Daughter As A Political Prop

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From here:

“I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian” […] Kerry told debate moderator Bob Schieffer.

And from here:

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter” […]

Using a human being as a political football is rather unseemly, even in such a close election. Kerry-Edwards has used the late Christopher Reeve as well as the ill Michael J. Fox for exactly this purpose. The media have offered little criticism in response.

But using the VP’s daughter, twice, is simply too much. Even the anti-Bush media have to call the Dems out on this.

They clearly want to hamper the Republicans in their effort to turn out their conservative, Christian base. But this is simply dirty pool.

Would Bush or Cheney have been given a pass by the media in pointing out that Kerry’s daughter is a slut, or that Kerry’s wife is nuts:

“John will never send a boy or girl in a uniform anywhere in the world because of our need and greed for oil.”

Or that Ms. Edwards is morbidly obese?

I don’t think so.

Kerry will pay a price here. Not among the anti-Bush homos, but in the media, where it counts.

Powered by

About RJ

  • boomcrashbaby

    Using a human being as a political football is rather unseemly, even in such a close election

    Damn, do you think? How about using millions of Americans as political footballs by trying to modify the Constitution against them so that you can rally your hard-line base?

    Kerry will pay a price here. Not among the anti-Bush homos, but in the media, where it counts.

    Edwards and Kerry mention that a person who is publicly out of the closet is a lesbian. I wonder why we anti-Bush homo’s won’t have a problem with that.

    This attempt to slam Kerry and Edwards for mentioning an out person’s sexuality reeks of desperation from the Right. Joe Scarborough was beside himself over this. I was just laughing.

    Somebody mentions that Edwards has a wife. No big deal. Somebody mentions Theresa Heinz Kerry. No big deal. Somebody mentions Mary Cheney has a girlfriend and ‘shock, gasp’ it’s personal!

    How about a President who decided it was none of your business who he was married to? Would you go without a First Lady? No, the concept is completely absurd. And that’s because mentioning a heterosexual relationship is like mentioning the weather, it’s just a given. But mention a same-sex relationship and you’ve invaded on someone’s dirty little secret! Well, hogwash.

    Mary Cheney is a public figure. Mary Cheney is out of the closet. Mary Cheney is the daughter of the vice president who’s boss is trying to amend the U.S. Constitution against gay people.

    This is only shocking and only news to those who want gay relationships to be in the shadows, and yes, they will try to use this as propaganda. Well, Mary’s out and neither Edwards or Kerry outed her.

    The Right doesn’t like putting a face on the casualties of their theocratic, medieval platform. That is why a big stink will be made out of this.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Well said, Steve (Boom). Having such hogwash come from the party that brought us the Willie Horton ad is telling. Apparently, it is acceptable to demean 12 million Americans by asserting they are dangerous, but not to acknowledge a woman’s sexual preference. John Kerry has been nothing but respectful of Mary Cheney. He, unlike George W. Bush, acknowledges her as a full human being. What Bush implied in the debate tonight is that she is a child of a lesser God. John Kerry is strong enough and honest enough to be straightforward about his beliefs: that the existence of gay people is natural, that the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade is not a legitimate reason to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, that racial and sexual discrimination are still very much with us and require affirmative action. George W. Bush lied about his stances on all three of these issues, in addition to not answering the question whether he believes homosexuality occurs naturally. Much of America heard the difference. And, much of America will respond.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    RJ,

    Your comments get more and more disappointing and thoughtless. This election is really bringing out the worst in you, analytically and personally.

    Do you not get the irony in moralizing about someone using someone’s daughter as a “political football” while attacking the opponent’s daughter for the mortal sin of wearing a dress she didn’t know was see-through to a premiere or making fun of a candidate’s wife for being heavy?

    Mary Cheney is a brave, talented, and very vocal and outspoken public advocate for gay rights. Dick Cheney has been fairly brave himself in supporting her and distancing himself from the President’s views, even if it has meant alienating some of the evangelical base.

    As for Kerry and Edwards bringing her up, it’s just good, smart politics. They appear more empathetic for doing so. Edwards’s reference wasn’t purely political calculation, it was a geniune attempt to reach out to Cheney, which Cheney seemed touched by. Plus, it reminds people that gay rights isn’t an abstract issue — Us vs. Them — and reminds them that gay people are as close as the daughter of a member of the ticket. Bringing up their empathy for Mary Cheney and connecting it to her father’s care for her only serves to illustrate Bush’s intolerance. It’s not below the belt and it’s smart politics.

    That is all.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Oh yeah, and it helps to take gay rights off the table as a motivating issue to whip up the Religious Right base.

    That is all.

  • http://ari.typepad.com Steve Rhodes

    Look, Mary worked as the gay and lesbian liason for Coors. She is out.

    And Cheney himself brought her up when he said he was against the constitutional ammendment on gay marriage And his wife said it should be left to the states before he did.

    Edwards and Kerry brought it up both to put a human face on the issue and hightlight that even Cheney doesn’t’ agree with Bush on the ammendment.

    If they were really the liberals Bush claims they are, they’d ask why the Bush twins could marry men, but Mary can’t marry her partner who she has been with for years. And if she did marry her, it wouldn’t “harm” traditional marriage one bit.

    But as you mentioned, this is really about rallying Bush’s bigoted base since the ammendment will never get through either congress or the states.

  • andy

    Bob, You don’t really believe that Edwards was trying to “reach” out to Cheney, do you? You can’t possible be that naive!!!

  • Shark

    RJ lectures the class about inappropriate comments from politicians.

    Then he says this:

    “…Kerry’s daughter is a slut, or that Kerry’s wife is nuts… Or that Ms. Edwards is morbidly obese?”

    — which gives us a good idea of RJ’s level of hypocrisy vs integrity.

    — and exposes a symptom of what motivates his right-wing politics: the dude is incredibly nasty and intolerant — just like the GOP.

  • JR

    Using a human being as a political football is rather unseemly, even in such a close election. Kerry-Edwards has used the late Christopher Reeve as well as the ill Michael J. Fox for exactly this purpose.

    Yeah, those sleazy Democrats. Whereas Jeb Bush had enough class to use a comatose woman as a political football.

  • andy

    I have no problem with civil unions, but let’s call them just that.

    from thesaurus.com:

    mar·riage
    Pronunciation: ‘mar-ij
    Function: noun
    1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.
    This is the definition. I didn’t write it.

  • http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    I doubt seriously that the father of Jenna and Laura Bush will ever point out that ANYONE is a slut.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    andy, do you realize that dictionaries don’t DETERMINE the meanings of words, they just REFLECT the current meanings of words? Do you think that the people who write dictionaries actually control what words mean? Dictionaries are living documents; they change every year to reflect words that are no longer used, new words that merit inclusion, and changes to the way we use words.

    If gay marriage were legal, the dictionary definition would simply change to match the meaning of the word as it is used. In fact, don’t be surprised if the definition changes soon to reflect the existence of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

    If the dictionary was an unchanging document that determined what words mean, we’d all still be speaking like Chaucer.

  • andy marsh

    well…that’s a word that I think should stay just that way…like I said…I have no problem with civil unions.
    Sorry if it offends. But I’ve been married to a WOMAN for 21 years. It’s my belief that it’s more of a religious sacrament than anything else.
    Have your civil unions, they can have just as much civil authority as my marriage, but leave my marriage alone!

  • The Dude

    Obviously Andy here believes that marriage is only between man and his property.

  • andy marsh

    and how did you get that from my post???

  • boomcrashbaby

    Have your civil unions, they can have just as much civil authority as my marriage, but leave my marriage alone!

    Nobody’s trying to touch your marriage.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Apparently, it is acceptable to demean 12 million Americans by asserting they are dangerous”

    Well well well. Our resident
    Black Nationalist doesn’t even know the correct number of black people in America. But then again, she thinks Pat Tillman got shot in Iraq, so it’s really not too surprising when you think about it…

  • andy marsh

    yes you are…it’s like calling margarine, butter!
    marriage is between a man and a woman. it’s not anything else just because the justices from the same state that consistently re-elect a murderer to the US Senate says otherwise!

  • boomcrashbaby

    I mean it’s too bad you feel that it lessens what you have with your own spouse.

  • andy marsh

    you know, like I said before, I’m willing to give a little on this issue. I understand that the relationships that gays have with each other can be just as meaningful as the relationship I have with my wife. Just find another word for it!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “you know, like I said before, I\’m willing to give a little on this issue. I understand that the relationships that gays have with each other can be just as meaningful as the relationship I have with my wife. Just find another word for it!”

    That’s basicly my position on the issue. Give gays civil unions that will provide all the benefits of a marriage. But just don’t call it marriage.

    It’s really not that much to ask. Just one little word is all. But the Far-Left views anything less than a complete redefinition of the institution of marriage, via undemocratic means, as unacceptable. And those who oppose gay marriage are nothing more than mindless bigots, to their eyes. (Of course, that would mean something like 70% of all Americans are “mindless bigots” but to the Left, that’s pretty much par for the course…)

  • andy marsh

    thank you, finally!

  • boomcrashbaby

    Give gays civil unions that will provide all the benefits of a marriage. But just don’t call it marriage.

    America tried a separate but equal ideology once and decided that it didn’t work and wasn’t what America was about.

    It’s so odd, this multi-million dollar battle for that one ‘word’, because you already concede the concept behind it to the gay community.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    If the “M” word is so unimportant, BCB, why compare yourself to a black person in Alabama in 1930 because you aren’t allowed to manipulate that word the way you’d like to?

    If I was black, I’d be offended at your comparison. Gays today are widely accepted in just about every facet of American life. Blacks in the South in the early part of this century were publicly hung on the mere suspicion of “raping” a white woman.

    There ain’t no equivalence there.

  • andy marsh

    You say separate but equal doesn’t work, yet everyone demands to be separate but equal. They feel the need to be called gay-american, african-american, italian-american, irish-american…well I have a new one…pissed off-married-heterosexual that doesn’t wanna give up that word-american!
    Whether you like it or not we’re all separate and not always equal! It’s life, it has nothing to do with America or any where else on the globe. It’s why my father still can’t program his VCR. It’s why I can’t play drums. We ARE NOT equal. It’s why some people are ditch diggers and others are doctors.
    It isn’t what America used to be about, back in the day as they say ,when my grandfather landed at Ellis Island. Everyone just wanted to be called American.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Whether you like it or not we’re all separate and not always equal!

    oh, I most definitely believe I am not your equivalent.

    ‘separate but equal’ refers to the overall treatment/recognition of society, i.e. the government. It does not mean to suggest we want to be your physical equivalent, or your equivalent in matters of manual dexterity. The next time the government denies you a marriage license because you can’t bang a drum, you let me know, until then I see no correlation.

  • andy marsh

    Unfortunately for you this is a democracy and the majority of the country doesn’t want to give you that word!
    Like I said, I’m willing to give you the benefits of a civil union, but I’ll never vote for gay marriage. Call it bigoted, narrow-minded, call it what ever you want, but like I said earlier, just because the backwards ass state of MA and the incredibly crazy city of SF say it’s so, doesn’t make it that way.

    So, what single line from this statement will you pick apart?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Most likely, he’ll just continue to pose as the victim of mean, narrow-minded Right-Wing Christian Republicans, in an attempt to garner sympathy while demonizing those who disagree with him (i.e. about 2/3rds of the country)…

  • boomcrashbaby

    Like I said, I’m willing to give you the benefits of a civil union

    Thank you for your gracious generousity, I’m honored for you to ‘give’ me something, but I actually have that.

    So, what single line from this statement will you pick apart?

    I alluded to other parts of your statement and skipped over the reminiscing about why America isn’t like it was for your grandfather, back before women had a voice, back before gay people quit cowering in the shadows, back before people had to share drinking fountains…reminiscing for a time when you didn’t even exist.

    I disagree that the governmental recognition of people and families should be left to popular vote, but it does seem to work that way. Personally, I’ve come to believe that there should be no governmental recognition of relationships at all, but I don’t think that will ever happen.

  • boomcrashbaby

    If the “M” word is so unimportant, BCB, why compare yourself to a black person in Alabama in 1930 because you aren’t allowed to manipulate that word the way you’d like to?

    I wasn’t the one to bring up the separate but equal ideology.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Andy, you seem to be under the impression that if gays are allowed to marry, you will have to surrender your wife to a woman and marry a man. I’m saying this because that is just about the only way gay marriage could be the threat you perceive it as. Tain’t so. Anymore so than the threats about what would happen if non-whites were allowed to use buses and water fountains white used were so. Think, if you can.

    I am not going to bother with much more of RJ’s ‘put me on the leader board’ vacuity. Suffice it to say that someone who doesn’t realize that population figures change over time is too dim-witted to have proper toilet etiquette, too. Thank God we can’t smell the people we interact with on the ‘Net.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    MD:

    Are you NOW suggesting that there were only 12 million black Americans in 1988, when the “infamous” ad you brought up (apropos of nothing, I might add) ran?

    Let’s see…there were 36 million black Americans in 2002. So, in your world, the black population TRIPLED in the US in just the last 16 years.

    Damn, you people breed like fuckin’ rabitts! 😉

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    RJ, I wondered at first if you were trying to write foolish things, but then I realized that I couldn’t write anything that foolish even if I tried my hardest, so I’ve decided that you might not actually recognize the sheer idiocy of the things you type.

    That would scare me, if I actually cared.

    That is all.

  • andy marsh

    I’m done…you change positions more than your fearless leader..one minute you want the govt to recognize you the next you say you wish they recognized nothing.
    You probably change arguments more often than you change your drawers..

    I quit…you win!

    Have a nice unmarried life.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Thank you for your constructive and highly-specific analysis, Phillip. Much appreciated.

    Andy: Don’t let the bastards get ya down. You didn’t really expect to change a gay man’s mind about gay marriage, did you?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Well, it is not unexpected of him, Phil. Nor is his effort to expand a slur directed at black adults by the GOP to include black children. Though it is possible that RJ is actually dim enough to believe black toddlers and elementary schools children can be dangerous to white folks, too. That is the kind of thing said at Gene Expression, where RJ has been spending time lately. He was on another thread spouting their line about black men having big penises and being sexually ravenous. Let’s just say, ‘I told you so.’

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Nor is his effort to expand a slur directed at black adults by the GOP to include black children.”

    Ah, so THAT’S your spin! There were only 12 million black adults in 1988?

    Well, the percentage of blacks who are under the age of 18 is between 1/3rd and 2/5ths. So, let’s be kind and pretend it was 40% in 1988.

    If there were 12 million black adults in 1988, there were no more than 8 million black children. So, a total of 20 million black Americans, using your “stats.”

    Yet there were REALLY about 29 million black Americans in 1988. In order to find only 20 million black Americans, one must go all the way back to about 1965.

    So, you’re wrong. AGAIN.

    What’s your spin gonna be this time? You were only including black American adults with last names starting with a letter from A-S?

    Why don’t you just admit you made a rather obvious mistake in your own little area of “expertise” and move on from there? Or aren’t you capable of admitting error?

    “That is the kind of thing said at Gene Expression, where RJ has been spending time lately.”

    That’s a lie. I haven’t visited that site in well over a year.

    And when have I ever called black men “sexually ravenous”? Cite? Or are you just lying again?

  • boomcrashbaby

    one minute you want the govt to recognize you the next you say you wish they recognized nothing.

    It’s as plain as day. I believe the government should not recognize relationships. SINCE that isn’t going to happen, then I believe they cannot discriminate between them. Plain as day.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    So, now, black grandpas and black grandmas and handicapped black folks are to be herded into being Willie Horton threats, too? For all Lee Atwater’s failings, he wasn’t that mean-spirited. I suspect he intended white America to think of relatively young, black adults, as a threat, not babies, older people or cripples. He may have had males in mind, which means he might have meant fewer than 12 million. Analytical thinking isn’t RJ’s forte, obviously. But, then, nothing is. Since I did not say what the black population of the U.S. was in 1988, he is swinging away at an illusion, anyway. Let’s sit back, watch him swing, and laugh.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    ROTFLMAO!

    MD, I offered you an out. You could just admit you were wrong the first time, the second time, and the third time, and live with it. We all make mistakes. We are all fallible, as mere mortals.

    Instead, in now your FOURTH “interpretation” of the facts, you are suddenly claiming to have not counted old people, “cripples,” and (maybe) women.

    Face it, you pulled your “statistic” out of your ass, and it was way off base. And instead of admitting a mistake and moving on, you are continually “amending” your previous comments to fit new data.

    It would be sad, if it weren’t so funny…

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Keep digging, RJ. You’ve almost reached virtual China. The rest of us will just keep laughing.