I dunno, Ogged. I see your point, but Gwen Ifill was plainly opening the door and beckoning with the question: "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."
When the GOP is sending out plainly inflammatory postcards to play on the homophobia of voters, is it really beyond the pale to remind voters that their leaders are being rank hypocrites on this issue? Especially when the pointers are from the party that has supported gay rights?
Would it have been slimy to have pointed out Strom Thurmond's black daughter back when he was running on a viciously segregationist platform?
Yeah, and here's Noam Scheiber (subscriber),
Easily the best moment of the night for Edwards was his backhanded compliment to Cheney and his wife for not disowning their gay daughter: "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." (Translation for conservatives: I think it's great that Dick Cheney supports his daughter's deviant lifestyle.)
The hypocrisy is a legitimate issue, and I have no problem with bringing it up. In fact, I would have been more comfortable if Edwards had said "Dick Cheney says he supports the FMA, but his own daughter is a lesbian!" But the way he went about it, phrasing the criticism as a compliment, just made me think "yuck." And insofar as he was (and there's no way to be sure that he was) playing on the prejudice he was disavowing, then double-yuck.
In the circumstances, I think Edwards was within his rights to mention Cheney's daughter the way he did (and he DID do it in a very gracious way). However, I too was disappointed in the responses on Israel. Still, I wasn't surprised - a mention of the Palestinians would have been a shock.
if the Republicans benefit from anti-gay prejudice most of the time, let them get cut by it for once.
Really? You're willing to feed the beast?
You're willing to feed the beast?
I'm willing to feed the beast its own shit and then refuse to give it a toothbrush.
Oh NO! You mean that Edwards was pointing out that Cheney stood behind making even his own daughter a second class citizen!!! How fucking awful of him! That he would bring that up in such an otherwise polite debate! Holy fuck! That he would remind the homophobes watching their tv's that their beloved vice president has allowed one of those black-blooded satan's children in his own house! Yeah, Edwards is fucking gross for bringing that up, and I deeply congratulate you on coming down on him for this moral outrage. It was beyond the pale of civilized discourse! To talk about a man's daughter, for god's sake! He must have been raised by wolves to think that sort of behavior acceptable. On should not remind people that lesbians are people's daughters. I salute you, sir. One should not remind people that lesbians are people's daughters, and if they dare to do so, we shall let them hear about it!
But you are right about the horribleness of Edward's answer on the Isreali conflict, not that it was as bad as Cheney's.
The whole reason Cheney acknowledged his lesbian daughter and opposed the amendment was to soften the image of Bushco for moderates. Same as with Laura Bush coming out as being pro-choice. Message: George W. Bush isn't such a strident meanie ideologue.
So if Cheney hadn't brought the issue up, I'd say you had a point. But he did, so you don't.
SV,
agreed - Cheney and Bush are playing good cop/bad cop.
So if Cheney hadn't brought the issue up, I'd say you had a point.
Wait a minute. Cheney never brought his daughter up. Ifill made a sideways reference to it in a question about gay marriage and Cheney's response never mentioned his family once. Edwards brought it up pointedly during his rebuttal and all Cheney said in response was thank you for the kind words about my family.
I think that strategically, the whole thing misfires -- are the homophobes going to be so "alienated" from Bush that they are going to go over to the side where everyone is pro-gay and pro-choice? I guess the best we could hope for is that some would just sit the election out to avoid cooties, but overall, it seems like wasted effort.
Adam: Constitution Party. I think it unlikely with Bush at the top of the ticket, though. On the other hand, I don't think there's much (any?) effort being expended here.
apostropher: Cheney brought it up on the stump, with the transparently political motive I alluded to.
I've never heard him bring it up. Not saying he hasn't, 'cause I don't read everything, but do you have a cite?
Cheney's remarks were widely reported at the time, which was directly before the Republican Convention. Here's a typical account:
Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney replied: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
At the time, the GOP was emphasizing its "moderation", sidelining the leadership of the party, and highlighting utterly atypical Republicans like Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzenegger. One would have to be willfully naive, make that blind, not to see Cheney's remarks as part of the same effort.
Adam, here's where I disagree with you: this is more important than a "strategy" issue. This Administration's policy is a horrible insult to the idea of equality, and should be fought however possible. Fuck crying "foul." The policy is fucking foul. Fuck them.
Ok ok, I'm not sure anymore just where the disagreement is. Are y'all saying that Edwards was not slimily informing Joe Voter of Mary's orientation, or that, even if he was, that's ok. Because I'll readily concede that I can't know that that's what he was doing, but if he was, it still strikes me as dishonorable.
My foaming outrage hasn't been clear? I was sure from the moment Edwards starting talking that he was informing Joe Voter of Mary's orientation, I just can't fathom how you can see this is "slimy" or "dishonorable." On the contrary, I think he did the exact right thing. There are a lot of people out there who have strong feelings against homosexuals, and the Bush administration perpetrates those kind of feelings by its rhetoric and policies. The homosexuals become a "them" - a viewpoint which the Bush administration reinforces. Edwards reminded Joe Voter that allying themselves with Bush/Cheney wasn't really allying themselves against them homosexual "them," because there is one of "them" in Cheney's own houshold, and he condones it!
I know what you're getting at, but it does seem that one would be scarred in some way if one's father was an evil mastermind.
Here's a principle: "let's keep the kids out of it."
Here's another principle: "my cause X is so extra, double dog important, that I don't need to observe the principles that would normally apply."
Congratulations to those here taking the high road.
Here's a principle: "let's keep the kids out of it."
Ahem: "Mary Cheney works for the Bush-Cheney campaign as director of vice presidential operations, responsible for her father's political travel and appearances."
Fontana, if that's what he was informing Joe Voter of, no problem. If he was informing Joe on the fence, kinda conservative Voter that Cheney's daughter is gay, so you might want to think twice about voting for him, then I have a problem. Of course, we can't know which he was doing, though my sense was that he was doing the latter.
Apostropher,
Please. The Kerry girls have been on the trail, but that shouldn't make them targets.
The Kerry daughters (likewise the Bush daughters) don't hold paid positions in the Kerry (Bush) campaign. Frankly, I don't give a damn about Mary Cheney's personal life, but the principle of "let's keep the kids out of it" weakens considerably when the kid is director of operations for the campaign.
So, just to clarify:
1. It's OK to mention the personal life of the director of operations of the opposing campaign.
2. It's OK to mention the personal life of children of the candidate if they draw a salary from the campaign
3. It's *not* OK to mention the personal life of children of the candidate if they are highly involved in the campaign, give speeches, appear in commercials, but don't draw a salary.
These are puzzling princples, in my opinion.
Well, baa, I'm not proposing a set of philosophical principles here. However, your protests seem to have some weak underpinnings, namely:
1. As noted by son volt, Cheney brought up his daughter's orientation first - in a campaign speech.
2. During the course of a moderated debate, the moderator referred to it, then the opposing candidate mentioned it in a manner that was clearly not an attack ("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.").
But that aside, the point is that the admonition to leave the kids out of the campaign rings hollow when the kid is the director of operations for the campaign. So, Cheney brings it up, Gwen Ifill brings it up, but its somehow beyond the pale for Edwards to mention it in response to Ifill's question? Or for anonymous schlubs in a blog comment thread to notice that chain of events?
Those are puzzling principles to me. <shrug>
If he was informing Joe on the fence, kinda conservative Voter that Cheney's daughter is gay, so you might want to think twice about voting for him, then I have a problem.
I really don't understand why. You think Edwards was playing to the conservatives, trying to keep them for voting? I certainly hope thats true! The piece of information is legitimate, and the issue is important. I want these conservative voters to stay home, if that's what it takes.
What's next? You're going to be huffy over the fact that Kerry raises the information that Bush's policies hurt the poor and Joe on the fence kinda conservative voter will stay home and not vote because he can't bring himself to vote for either candidate?
And Kerry's daughter is a legitimate topic because she's gay, and gay is the issue!! Jeesus! This administration states that seperate is equal. I should have thought everyone knew what a lie that is.
Would you object that Edwards mentioned he though it noble that Cheney's son lost a leg in war, and what a noble sacrifice it was, and then went on to discuss how the Administratioin had cut health care for war vets? (Not saying they have done this)
Run out of gas play black jack looked up at the menu and gasped.