Fair to Use Lynne Cheney's Name?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-18 12:50am

I keep hearing about it on tv and about how Dick Cheney et al. are upset that John Kerry/John Edward have used Lynne Cheney's name in reference to the whole gay issue. My question is, is it fair? I hear Bush supporters talking about how this is a private issue, the whole name thing and about how Lynne Cheney shouldn't be brought up even though she is a lesbian. But to me, I personally sense a little hyprocracy in that kind of statement because it was the Republicans who in the first place didn't want to acknoledge the privacy of gays/lesbians in the first place. What do you think? Is it fair to use Lynne Cheney's name?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-10-18 12:58am

Given how the Republicans treated McCain, I find they're complaints rather hollow. On the other hand, I don't think it was a good move on Kerry's part. To many its just going to come across as a cheap shot, regardless of his intentions.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-18 01:00am

You're thinking of Mary Cheney, not Lynne Cheney. Lynne Cheney is his wife.

No, I don't think it's fair, personally. What if Bush was asked a question about divorce counselling for the children of divorcees and brought up Kerry's children from his first marriage as an example?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-18 01:02am

These are people that are running for public office. Sorry, but 'fairness' doesn't enter into it. If the Republicans are gonna throw that bullshit about Kerry's Vietnam service into it then the Democrats are allowed to throw in Lynne Cheney. "Dirty political stunt" my arse. They're just jealous since Lynne's lesbianism is a contemporary issue, meaning Kerry's point actually has some merit and relevance for modern times, whereas it's been 30 years since the end of Vietnam and no-one gives a shit what either one did back then.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-18 01:03am

[EDIT] Fuck. Lynne is the wife, not the daughter. My bad.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-18 01:07am

These are people that are running for public office. Sorry, but 'fairness' doesn't enter into it. If the Republicans are gonna throw that bullshit about Kerry's Vietnam service into it then the Democrats are allowed to throw in Lynne Cheney. "Dirty political stunt" my arse. They're just jealous since Lynne's lesbianism is a contemporary issue, meaning Kerry's point actually has some merit and relevance for modern times, whereas it's been 30 years since the end of Vietnam and no-one gives a shit what either one did back then.

The SwiftVets are a 527 smear group not affiliated with Bush campaign. Bush isn't the one calling the shots for them.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-10-18 01:10am

Joe wrote:
These are people that are running for public office. Sorry, but 'fairness' doesn't enter into it. If the Republicans are gonna throw that bullshit about Kerry's Vietnam service into it then the Democrats are allowed to throw in Lynne Cheney. "Dirty political stunt" my arse. They're just jealous since Lynne's lesbianism is a contemporary issue, meaning Kerry's point actually has some merit and relevance for modern times, whereas it's been 30 years since the end of Vietnam and no-one gives a shit what either one did back then.
The SwiftVets are a 527 smear group not affiliated with Bush campaign. Bush isn't the one calling the shots for them.

They're about as "not affiliated" as my sphincter is "not affiliated" with my anus.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-18 01:12am

They're about as "not affiliated" as my sphincter is "not affiliated" with my anus.

Would you go into greater detail?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-18 01:15am

Opps....someone mind ammending the title?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-18 01:19am

darthdavid wrote: They're about as "not affiliated" as my sphincter is "not affiliated" with my anus.

Well if you can honestly tell me it was organized by the Bush campagin then by all means show me, because I'd be interested in how. I've seen a web of entanglement and such but I've still yet to see how it is involved with any official campaign activity.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-10-18 01:22am

Talon Karrde wrote:
darthdavid wrote: They're about as "not affiliated" as my sphincter is "not affiliated" with my anus.
Well if you can honestly tell me it was organized by the Bush campagin then by all means show me, because I'd be interested in how. I've seen a web of entanglement and such but I've still yet to see how it is involved with any official campaign activity.

These are the same guys who smeared McCain back in the primaries, they used a completly unrelated campaign. So tell me, how likely is it that the same group of assclowns is gonna, with no support or sanction, follow around bush through 2 campaigns, and with no connecting reason other than to help bush, launch two smear campaigns?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-18 01:25am

Its just the whole idea of respecting his gay daughter's privacy but at the same time, many Republicans are willing to intrude on the rights of gays that just strikes me as...I dunno...weird? or something...

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-18 01:29am

The word you're looking for is 'hypocritical'.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-18 01:33am

Joe wrote:The SwiftVets are a 527 smear group not affiliated with Bush campaign. Bush isn't the one calling the shots for them.

Kerry still had to deal with it, and while the Swiftvets aren't officially affiliated with Bush they sure do seem to be on his side.

And my point is that this is politics: fairplay doesn't enter into it. Personally I don't see Kerry's comment as that great big of a deal.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-18 01:41am

Kerry still had to deal with it, and while the Swiftvets aren't officially affiliated with Bush they sure do seem to be on his side.

And my point is that this is politics: fairplay doesn't enter into it. Personally I don't see Kerry's comment as that great big of a deal.

Blame McCain-Feingold if you don't like the fact that the Swift Vets are obviously benefitting Bush despite the fact that they aren't officially doing so. And besides, you're appealing to common practice; just because Rove is sleaze doesn't make it OK for the Kerry campaign to be sleaze as well.

There may be no civility in American politics as it is now, but that does not make it a desirable state of affairs.

Terminator · Post by **Terminator** » 2004-10-18 02:18am

let them be upset, wah wah he pointed out that we fully support the rights of our gay relatives but will totaly pander to groups that are totaly convinced gays are burning in hell or can be "cured" of somthing

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-18 02:40am

As far as I'm concerned, by attempting to curtail and restrict gay rights, Bush and his team have already put gay and lesbian issues front and center. To try to mandate what goes on in someone's bedroom and then turn around and call it unfair for Kerry to mention hits me as being rather hypocritical.

Mind you, I don't think bringing up Cheney's gay daughter is fair, but neither do I think that it is appropriate to legislate such things in the first place.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-10-18 04:11am

What's so unfair about Kerry bringing up Cheny's gay daughter? Is she embarassed to be gay? Its not like Kerry broke the story. It shows clearly that Cheny wants his gays in general and his daughter in particular to stay in the closet.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-18 04:50am

Bush's bodycount is 20,000+ civilians. Kerry uses Mary Cheney to illustrate point. Damn that Kerry!

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-10-18 05:02am

Lord Poe wrote:What's so unfair about Kerry bringing up Cheny's gay daughter? Is she embarassed to be gay? Its not like Kerry broke the story. It shows clearly that Cheny wants his gays in general and his daughter in particular to stay in the closet.

The problem is not that it's a problem, but rather that it was a tactically stupid move. Even extremity conservatives like Pat Robertson, et al, are reacting negatively to the comments on the grounds that it's not Kerry's business. The basic thing is that most conservatives like gays to be "out of sight, out of mind" as it were; so Kerry's bringing up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation basically becomes a sort of social equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell" to conservatives, with Kerry having violated the "tell" part.

Of course, that's all absolute nonsense and has about as much logic to it as a rabid dog, but it's serving to further mobilize the President's conservative base, so it's highly relevant to the issue, even if it shouldn't be, and not only relevant but relevant in a negative way to Kerry.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-10-18 08:08am

I personally think that it was a valid point, valid tactic, and valid use.

After all, if that's how a candidate is going to view his/his running partner's own daughter, how the hell are the going to view people they are not related to.

I mean, come on, Bush is basically saying to his running mates daughter, in a very public way If I can, I'm going to prevent you from pursuing your right to truth, justice and the pursuit of happiness that our country was founded on/professes to

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-18 10:31am

Mary Cheney is entirely fair game. First, she's involved in the campaign in a key role RELATING to gay issues. The administration has USED her to suggest that they're favorable to the gay community (laughs fully understood here). Even the notable group "Log Cabin Republicans" (a group of organized gay republicans) agrees that she's fair game and that the Cheney's response is nothing more than an attempt to use the issue for their gain.

If you do not want your children discussed then do not include them in the campaign. When Kerry's daughters went on TV to speak on their father's behalf, they became fair targets for discussion, but they're also adults.

This is the same party that ridiculed Amy Carter when it was to their benefit (Jimmy opened that up by referring to her in a debate) and who also didn't have the nicest things to say about Chelsea Clinton when she was still a child. In other words, they can stick their feigned shock where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not buying it and neither should anyone else. "Hey! You insulted my 30 year-old campaign manager!" They've gotta be kidding.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-18 10:57am

ir it´s fair for the republicans to bring up irrelevant shit like some fat chick sucking clinton´s cock then it´s fair for the democrats to bring up irrelevant shit like chenys gay kids as well.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-18 02:07pm

The Bush administration has said and done far worse regarding homosexuals than John Kerry mentioning Dick Cheney's daughter.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-18 05:22pm

salm wrote:ir it´s fair for the republicans to bring up irrelevant shit like some fat chick sucking clinton´s cock then it´s fair for the democrats to bring up irrelevant shit like chenys gay kids as well.

Funny, last I heard, Bush hadn't perjured himself with regards to Cheny's daughter.