Because he had a rebellious daughter?
What you are suggesting is that if a man has certain moral principles, he should either allow his privately rebellious daughter to dictate what he says in public when applying those same moral principles.
Keyes daughter was not yet OUT and the Keyes parents had not accepted that she was going to remain unrepentant with her sexual sin.
Mary Cheney however was OUT and her moral life was already a known issue, which is why the reporter asked the question.
What you are suggesting is that Keyes must not answer directly and truthfully about homosexuality (using the definition he had just given), until he OUTS his daughter.
Since all women are someone's daughter, you are suggesting that he cannot comment on homosexuality involving any women unless he first OUTS his daughter.
You have ranted about how much you despise him, but your reshuffling of Keyes consistant position is one big logical flaw.
Keyes would only have been a hypocrite if he had told his own daughter that sexual sin was good and acceptable, and that she did not need to repent, while saying that all other homosexuals were selfish and hedonistic and in need of repentance.
Instead he told his own daughter (who was not yet OUT and politically active) that homosexuality is wrong, hedonistic and selfish, which is EXACTLY what he applied to any other homosexual including Mary Cheney.
No, because all he did was prove himself to be whatever thought already -- that he's a hyprocrite.
And stop trying to say we wanted him to expose his daughter. Either you're too dense to understand it, or you don't want to, so I'll put it in language you can understand:
We don't think he should have named ANYBODY'S daughter, but he chose to name Mary Cheney at the same time he hid his own daughter's lesbianism.
He's a hyprocrite.