Quote:
Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Yep. I thought it was great. Bush likes to talk about homosexuality like it's some weird disease (which I'm well aware he thinks it is) and Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney humanized it.
|
Humanized it? Humanized it, I'm sure, by having a lackey insinuate that the Cheneys are ashamed? Humanized it by bringing her name up, instead of one of the dozens of openly gay celebrities who campaign for Kerry every day? Humanized it by marking a fucking unknown campaign staffer as "fair game" when he knows full well this has little to NO impact on policy or platforming? The "humanizing" angle is so weak, you may as well drop it now - you don't 'humanize' something by applying it to someone no one even knows or has heard of to this point. It's nonsense.
Look, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, this was a low blow, and even if you think Cheney is playing the 'outrage card' for political benefit, why on earth would this be wrong, but jamming someone's sexual preference into a minute crack in a debate is completely allowed? They're both douchebag maneuvers.
It is, quite simply, in poor taste - why should it even be relevant? You can assail Bush's stance on homosexuality all you want, but this is a dozen steps removed from that argument, and is probably nearly as bad. Is it 'off-limits'? Obviously not. Is it a dickhead move? Obviously, unilaterally, without a doubt. This epitomizes cheesy politics.