Out of bounds
Political discourse must needs be spirited. The battle of ideas is a fierce one, and that is a good thing. Passionate advocacy from both sides of an important question increases the sum total of knowledge.
But there are, or should be, certain limits. One should not lie to advance one's political cause. One should never stoop so low as to use an opponent's family for political gain. No gentleman would ever do so, but sometimes exclusive academies and Swiss boarding schools fail to mold gentlemen.
So it was when John Kerry invoked Dick Cheney's daughter in the final Presidential debate. As a completely isolated instance, we might be inclined to attribute this to poor judgement in the heat of debate, a mere slip of the tongue. But John Edwards did exactly the same thing during the Vice Presidential debate.
A Presidential candidate does not repeat his running mate's recent errors. It seems both mentions were deliberate and planned. It is despicable.
Obviously, some focus group found that evangelicals and/or traditional Catholics said they were less likely to vote for Bush once they learned about the Cheneys' daughter's sexual orientation. So, John and John decided to make sure more of these voters heard about it - and if they missed it the first time in the little-watched VP debate, why, we'll give it too them again!
That it was calculated with malice aforethought is made more clear when Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign director, stated flatly that young Ms. Cheney was "fair game." Like an animal, to be hunted down for sport?
Then Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John, publicly decried Lynne Cheney's angry reaction as evidence the Cheneys feel "shame" about their daughter's lifestyle. Is there anyone who believes Mrs. Edwards' statements aren't 100% approved in advance by the Kerry campaign? If there is, please contact me for a great deal on resort property on the moon. Free green cheese to the first 50 respondents!
The naked ambition of these Senators should be disturbing to any decent human being. Have they no honor at all?
But I suppose they have answered that question already . . .
But there are, or should be, certain limits. One should not lie to advance one's political cause. One should never stoop so low as to use an opponent's family for political gain. No gentleman would ever do so, but sometimes exclusive academies and Swiss boarding schools fail to mold gentlemen.
So it was when John Kerry invoked Dick Cheney's daughter in the final Presidential debate. As a completely isolated instance, we might be inclined to attribute this to poor judgement in the heat of debate, a mere slip of the tongue. But John Edwards did exactly the same thing during the Vice Presidential debate.
A Presidential candidate does not repeat his running mate's recent errors. It seems both mentions were deliberate and planned. It is despicable.
Obviously, some focus group found that evangelicals and/or traditional Catholics said they were less likely to vote for Bush once they learned about the Cheneys' daughter's sexual orientation. So, John and John decided to make sure more of these voters heard about it - and if they missed it the first time in the little-watched VP debate, why, we'll give it too them again!
That it was calculated with malice aforethought is made more clear when Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign director, stated flatly that young Ms. Cheney was "fair game." Like an animal, to be hunted down for sport?
Then Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John, publicly decried Lynne Cheney's angry reaction as evidence the Cheneys feel "shame" about their daughter's lifestyle. Is there anyone who believes Mrs. Edwards' statements aren't 100% approved in advance by the Kerry campaign? If there is, please contact me for a great deal on resort property on the moon. Free green cheese to the first 50 respondents!
The naked ambition of these Senators should be disturbing to any decent human being. Have they no honor at all?
But I suppose they have answered that question already . . .
posted by Adjoran at 1:09 AM
1 Comments:
If I was gay, I'd be more insulted by the fact that everyone is taking Kerry's comment as insulting. I mean, can you say "homophobia"? Everyone knows she is gay. She was a gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Company. Its not like he was publically outing her. Actually if you read between the lines, you should be able to figure out what Kerry was saying here. It's something thats true but if Kerry had said it it would have cast an unfavorable light on him during the debates. The truth that he was stating, was that Cheney is a hypocrite for claiming to love his daughter but staying quiet at Bush's gay-bashing agenda. Or the fact that Bush can't even support his vice-presidential candidate's daughter's views. I mean Kerry didn't attack Cheney's daughter. Bush is the one that has been attacking her for nearly a year. Kerry was just reminding everyone, "Hey this guy's friend's daughter is gay and he still treats them like second-class citizens".
Post a Comment
<< Home