Posted on 10/18/2004 2:12:05 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
The wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said Monday that Republican criticism of Sen. John Kerry for mentioning Mary Cheney's sexual orientation was a distraction from more pressing issues.
Campaigning in Denver, Elizabeth Edwards also argued that President Bush has tried to politicize the issue of gay rights in pressing for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
``I believe the president has tried to use the constitutional amendment as a wedge issue, instead of addressing things like health care or real reform and attention to our veterans' issues,'' Edwards said.
Mrs. Edwards also said she was upset with the GOP complaints about Kerry's comments in his debate last week with Bush. Republicans have called Kerry remarks inappropriate, and in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, Bush said the statement was ``over the line.''
``I'm distressed that what it did was distract from what should have been a dialogue over issues that should have been raised during the third debate - domestic policy issues like health care and jobs and education,'' Edwards said.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Edwards took the bait, and cheney stood down. All's fair.
The moderator made a reference, Cheney answered without reference to his family, and Edwards "took the bait" as you say. (VP Cheney then made his terse comment "thanking" the Senator for his comments about the Cheney family, ending the topic at the time.)
Of course he had a right to bring it up. And we have the right to point out it was not fair, it was an attack and calculated political ploy. Thanks to the Edwards business, Kerry's assault was made all the more stark.
You may approve, but when one contemplates how Kerry shied away from naming McGreevey, choosing instead to make an oblique reference to knowing "wives and husbands", due to the tacit realization that such a direct reference---even about one who is squarely in the political arena and has taken to a microphone on the subject---is just plain tacky and tasteless at the least, vicious at the worst, then one can plainly see this was wrong of Kamp Kerry to do. Period.
P.S. Mary Cheney is not "very visible" in the campaign. She is part of it.
What tripe.
Like the VP said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig".
don't pretend you don't realize that.
Why don't you remind us of the question and answer in the VP debate and the question and answer in the presidential debate. I recall them well and frankly you are being beyond silly.
Not fair? Vicious?
C'mon, I thought the gop was made of stronger stuff.
Politics is a tough game, the fact that cheney let the initial remark slide, left the door wide open for a follow up volley.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Seems as if SHE is now fair game.
I guess it bothers you that 2/3 or Americans agree it was wrong for Kamp Kerry to attack the Cheneys in this manner.
Whatever your problem with the GOP is, that has nothing to do with the pile of doo Kamp Kerry is in and evidently has decided to wallow in.
Thank you! I've been meaning to make that point for awhile! EDWARDS DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION! There was NO reason to mention Mary Cheney.
"Why don't you remind us of the question and answer in the VP debate and the question and answer in the presidential debate. I recall them well and frankly you are being beyond silly."
Ok. Here you go.
IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.
I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.
Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?
CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.
That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.
Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.
In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.
And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.
Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.
Our Call
Analysis and video excerpt
Your Call
Reader's forum
EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.
Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not.
We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.
I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.
But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.
No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.
This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.
IFILL: New question, but same subject.
As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.
Are you trying to have it both ways?
EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.
We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.
For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.
I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.
But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.
I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.
There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.
We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.
I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
KERRY EDWARDS DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Thank you.
Now I hope you can plainly see that your assertion that "the question made cheney fair game " (sic) in the VP debate making the Edwards and Kerry comments somehow "in play" is flat out absurd.
I guess it bothers you that 2/3 or Americans agree it was wrong for Kamp Kerry to attack the Cheneys in this manner.
Doesn't bother me at all. I didn't see it as an attack.
If Edwards remark had been an attack, don't you think cheney would have put him in his place?
If anyone had "attacked" my daughter, I'd have let them have it.
Hey....Nice pic of Michael MOOre!
We disagree.
Elizab!tch even has a fat mouth.
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.