My second favorite ping list. 8~)
Posted on 10/17/2004 2:24:15 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
They could have picked any gay person to make an example, but pick on the daughter of their opposition. Stupid move and very transparent. They could have mentioned Ellen easier and more would have known her and not gasped at them mentioning a candidate's child.
"Um... she was at a FILM FESTIVAL. There were cameras *everywhere* on the red carpet. She should've known better (and probably did)."
Bet you a buck the film festival was in Europe. Photogs much more aggressive there.
They're only compounding everyone's disgust by saying they had no motive in using her in the debates.
My second favorite ping list. 8~)
By any chance is that TJ Eckleburg?
Yes, the candidate knows that the tabloids and other media will go after their family. But the candidates have basically followed an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" of sorts not to go for the family members themselves. Hillary was an exception because she was obviously thinking she was on the ticket, as well. But not the kids.
Kerry and Edwards have demonstrated their lack of class over and over with issues like Mary Cheney. What if Bush had said "There are many more thousands of young people killed in auto accidents than in Iraq, as Senator Edwards and his wife can verify since their own son was killed in a crash instead of in a war." That would be disgusting, as was Kerry's inane remark.
My thinking is more along the lines of Harry Truman in regards to his daughter Margaret.
People know a cheap shot when they hear it.
When it is at the children of opponents, it may bite you back.
That debate and comment lost Kerry a permanent 1-2 points IMO!
If sKerry had used Ms. Cheney's sexual preference to make a point, It might have been understandable.
The fact is, after mentioning she was a lesbian, he want mumbling on and never answered the original question, nor made any real point.
That justifies claims that it was a planned backstabber (but it backfired).
Bump
That they do. He could have been talking about their child. Kerry's gamble was ill conceived and it has been ill received.
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and>P? (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
No lawyer here, but my guess would be that since Kerry did not reveal any new information, that Mary's father had already discussed the issue in public, and it was common knowledge even before her dad talked about it publicly, it would never get to court. The details of Mary's life are private, but the fact that she is a lesbian is public so how can her right to privacy have been violated?
If the question had been "is musical talent inborn or acquired?", and a one of the candidates had mentioned the other's son or daughter who was a gifted musician, there would be no discussion. It is not the mention of Cheney's daughter that is the problem, it is the negative judgement that some people have of gays. Mary has the right to keep that information about herself private and I would never condone outing anyone, however Mary has lived openly as a lesbian and worked within the Republican party with gays and lesbians. She has made her sexual orientation public and I'm sure that as an intelligent, 35 year old woman, she is well aware that some people weren't going to like that very much.
So mentioning Mary was not ok but talking about some one else would be?
We all know that Kerry's daughter is an exibitionist! God only knows what that hussey would be flashing at us if she really had anything at all to flash.
Ms Kerry: If you are through with those sunny side up eggs, the chicken wants them back.
wrbones wrote:
This is why the right to privacy was placed in our Bill of Rights,
______________________________________
????
17 maryz
______________________________________
I must have missed that one. Which one was it?
22 neanderthal
______________________________________
Try understanding the 9th Amendment. A right doesn't have to be emumerated to exist.
Why would you object to our rights to a private life, liberty, and private property?
72 tpaine
______________________________________
Are you suggesting that Mary Cheney's privacy is protected from private, individual intrusion by the ninth amendment?
77 robbiedumson
______________________________________
No, my boy, I was suggesting that we wonder why some people here think we have no rights to privacy. Get it?
What does that have to do with the above article about Mary Cheney?
I would think not, but there are certainly more public figures like Ellen that could have made a pre-approved choice to be used in an example.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - I haven't pung the list to many of these Cheney/F'nKerry threads. There have been many, with not a lot of light shed.
But lentulusgracchus has posted a lot of very good information - check out his comments!
Let me and Scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat everywhere in emails, on FreeRepublic and wherever...Lynne Cheney was right...John Kerry is NOT a good man, John Kerry is NOT a good man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.