I think what Kerry was trying to do was to speak about someone that most people, especially those watching and attending the debate, could "relate" to sort of instead of continuing to talk about gay Americans as some nameless, faceless entity that you discuss in terms of political and moral ideology. It was the perfect way of saying to America "Here we have the daughter of one of the most important political leaders of the nation, whose party has taken a firm stand against her lifestyle (natural or not), who is a lesbian. How can we not consider this issue and these people in a more personable way?"

He could have brought up Rosie O'Donnell, or a ton of other very easily identifiable gays out there, but he didn't. That was not his intention.

-Rudey

No, that's not the same. It's like saying "Little Suzy has brown hair." She was born that way.

I agree. Mary Cheney was born that way. We are all born with a sexual identity. Not all folks see it that way, and in everyday life away from a campaign there is some disagreement on both sides.

I also think that the initial wording here was unfortunate. I don't think an insult was intended.

It was a balls out attempt to use Mary Cheney in a cynical attempt to turn the far religious right away from the ticket. They ASSUME that the right are all bigoted fools.

But the Cheneys have not covered up or disowned their daughter. And Edwards tried to say that the Cheneys made it an issue in Iowa, so Cahill's chilling remark was perfectly fine. That is wrong as well. The Cheneys merely responded when asked a question about their daughter.

She is close to her parents, they love each other, and they have included her life partner in family events. She can be seen with Mary on various stages when appearing with the Cheneys. IF they were "ashamed" as Mrs. Edwards insinuated, why would she be on the RNC payroll?
She is an adult human being with worth and to do that to HER, not just her parents, is low and scummy and not at all unexpected.

I'm still amazed that people are saying someone has no right to feel insulted.

-Rudey

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I find it really interesting that Cheney would still be against gay marriage with a lesbian daughter. I'm even more suprised that she would campaign for him.


:confused:

Makes sense - if you add, "Little Suzy has brown hair, even though we're blondes."

The purpose of the remark was not to unify, but to divide.

And I'm not so sure it was off the cuff - the remarks that the Edwards both made so easily the same night seemed almost scripted.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~goril...lk/cheney1.JPG
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~goril...lk/cheney2.JPG

does that explain things?

Actually, if you'll recall the Cheney Edwards debate, it was pointed out that Cheney is not necessarily opposed to gay marriage and in fact acknowledged that he opposes the marriage ban amendment.
And also, as I said, the family is very close, they have never estranged themselves, they have included her partner as part of the family.
She loves her father and he loves her. Why would she NOT campaign for him?

Ok, I forgot you know Kerry personally and know what his intention was :rolleyes:

I agree.

If he wanted to personalize the issue, he should have done that with the consent of that private individual.

Actually, all political agendas aside, this does make the most sense.

True. He should have realized its a really PC topic. Gays have become protected by the Politically Correct Police. Its become one of those sensitive issues.

Mrs. Cheney showed alot of restraint by not lowering herself to Elizabeth Edwards' level and bring up the rumors that the circustances surrounding the death of Edwards' son involved drugs and alcohol in his car accident.