Kerry's use of Cheney's daughter backfiring?

It was crass and now it may cost him..

Published on October 15, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Kerry's decision to use Cheney's daughter as a political prop in the last debate may come back to haunt him. Non-parents don't seem to get the big deal but most parents I know (left or right) are pretty outraged by it. It may turn out to be the blunder that costs Kerry in Ohio which is the key state in this election.

One good article on the issue can be found here: http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2004/10/james-taranto-and-others-may-be-right.html

Imagine if Bush had talked about how traumatic divorce is and talked about how hard it must have been on Kerrys' daughters when Kerry left their mother. Would that be okay? No. It would not. It would have been tacky beyond belief.

Parents don't want their kids used as fodder. It has nothing to do with the daughter being gay but rather bringing up your opponent's children in an effort to help yourself is very poor taste. And it's particularly reprehensible that it was such a blatant ploy (to the ponit that John Stewart was making fun of it) to try to appeal to the homophobe vote. There was no point in bringin up Cheney's daughter in the debate.

It reminds me of the end of the movie, The Dead Zone, where the crooked politician picks up a nearby child to use as a human child. Kerry, in essence, made use of his opponent's child as a blunt instrument and it may cost him the election depending on how much legs this story has. And I think it does have some legs. People are mad about it. It was talked about at work and on the radio and elsewhere.

If you're not a parent, you won't understand it I suspect. My wife and I were disgusted at the time. We just couldn't believe he did that. The press score, who aren't conservatives, apparently groaned when they heard him say that from the press room at the debate hall. I suspect Kerry may be groaning too when it's over. We'll see.

Comments (Page 1)

Daiwa

on Oct 15, 2004

It was premeditated, gratuitous and targeted.

Kerry's defenders' BS about the outrage revealing homophobia is pathetically lame and dodges the questions of what her (known) sexual orientation had to do with the question and why, of all the possible people to cite as an example (if one was needed, which it wasn't) Mary Cheney was the first and only person to pop into his mind.

I am a social liberal. I respect the freedom of consenting adults to lead the lives they choose (whether homosexuality is a choice or not). One of my business partners is gay, in a stable monogamous relationship for longer than most marriages, and I trust him completely. One of my nephews is a moderately militant gay, and an unconditionally loved member of our family. So I feel reasonably confident I can justifiably say I am not a homophobe. Kerry's comment was beyond objectionable, and the objection is unrelated to Mary Cheney's sexual orientation, something which has not been hidden from voters by any stretch.

In a way, Cheney's terse thank you to Edwards when he stepped in the same shit may have led the Kerry camp to think that going there again was low risk. And I say camp, not just Kerry, because the remark was clearly premeditated, which makes the whole thing even more despicable.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Solitair

on Oct 15, 2004

I'm not a parent, but likewise I find it totally unacceptable.

Unless someone is actually using their family in a political campaign to assist in gaining votes, then that family is entitled to privacy and should not to be used by either political side to score political points. While this is especially true of children I also find using any family member, such as a wife, also unacceptable. The one possible exception is in a situation where an adult family member (grown up child, brother, parent) may be considered an impediment on a politician doing their job (eg a brother known to have criminal links). In such a situation I would consider it acceptable to ask a candidate what they will do to ensure no undue influence occurs, but not acceptable to resort to attacking that family member.

The same should be true for normal civilians. Politicians should not be allowed use peoples names or their 'cases' unless that person has either given permission or has been getting involved in politics. So I would find it completely unacceptable for Kerry to list dead US soldiers by name to make a political point and likewise I would find it unacceptable for Bush to

Paul.

Asmodean_dk

on Oct 15, 2004

How does what Kerry said about Cheney's daughter differ from the remark Edwards made in the VP debate?

blogic

on Oct 15, 2004

Unless someone is actually using their family in a political campaign to assist in gaining votes, then that family is entitled to privacy

First of all, Mary Cheney has been active all year stumping for her father.

Second, Mary Cheney is the Director of her father's campaign.

Third, Mary Cheney is openly gay -- she's been a coordinator of gay outreach efforts for her father's campaign, and worked as a liaison to the gay community for the Coors Brewing Company.

Here's what Andrew Sullivan writes:

"Had the president, when speaking about immigration, referenced Teresa Heinz Kerry's experience in a positive or neutral light, would that have been inappropriate? Is Mary Cheney's homosexuality some sort of affliction? A verboten family tragedy like the death of John Edwards' son? The only "cheap and tawdry political trick" performed Wednesday night was the one turned by the Cheney parental units. It was they who used their daughter's sexuality as a weapon against John Kerry's sympathetic (and very general) remark. If only Dick and Lynne were so indignant when their daughter was legitimately under attack by an administration willing to write gays and lesbians out of the nation's founding document. Selective indignation has never been so crass …" - Kevin Arnovitz, Slate. Amen. It's legitimate to threaten every gay couple with the removal of their basic rights, but it is not legitimate to point out that Cheney's own daughter will be directly affected? By what twisted logic?

Dr Guy

on Oct 15, 2004

Blogic, your facts are of course, as usual, wrong. And as Draginol stated, you must not be a parent.

But beyond that, you are a typical kool-aid drinking liberal. For if you weree not, you would realize that your characterization of the right (hate filled, racist homophobes) is just a caricture to keep the sheep of the left in line.

If you had an open mind, you would seee that Kerry is as stupid as you, and he stepped into it big time. If he could have thought for himself, instead of just regurgitating his handlers, he would have known that it was out of bounds.

But neither of you will ever understand that. SO just go bleat for your candidate. "Two legs are better than 4"

Daiwa

on Oct 15, 2004

How does what Kerry said about Cheney's daughter differ from the remark Edwards made in the VP debate?

Not much. Just as calculatedly crass. And it was in the VP debate, which few people cared much about.

Cheers,
Daiwa

dharmagrl

on Oct 15, 2004

It has nothing to do with the daughter being gay but rather bringing up your opponent's children in an effort to help yourself is very poor taste.

Exactly. It was a cheap shot, and my husband and I said at the time that we thought it was going to cost Mr Kerry dearly.

Glorfindel

on Oct 15, 2004

DrGuy :
Usually, when you're saying someone "your fact is wrong", you also tell the right facts, so everyone can be educated.
So, where are the wrong facts ? MC did not work for Coors ? She is not the campaign director of her father ?

As far as I'm interested in this, I'm with Sullivan. MC is openly lesbian. She has not been outed by Kerry (which would have been a shame). Being a lesbian is not an affliction, and is not shameful.
The best way to see homosexuality accepted is not to hide it.

Reading the transcript, I think it was a mistake of Kerry, he won't gain a vote with it. At first, I was thinking it was calculated, but in fact, I can't see what K was hoping to gain with that.
Does anybody really believe that gaybashers will vote for Kerry because of Cheney's daughter ?
I'm believing K was sincere, and a little clumsy. I can't see a winning strategy in it. (but I can be quite naive..)

But the "thou shall NOT speak of another's kid in any way that could POSSIBLE be construed as negative" comments are very revealing.
Can you think "being a lesbian is negative" without homophobia ? I don't think so.

As for Draginol's divorce example, Kerry was not speaking about trauma. He was sympathetic. He did not pity her.
Were Lynne and Dick very angry when their daughter was called a "selfish hedonist" ?
Were Mary and her partner on stage, at the GOP conv ? Can somebody deny that if she had a regular husband, they would have been on stage (like her sister) ?
(http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_08_29_dish_archive.html)

vincible

on Oct 15, 2004

What's wrong with calling an openly gay person gay?

Imagine if Bush had talked about how traumatic divorce is and talked about how hard it must have been on Kerrys' daughters when Kerry left their mother

Andrew Sullivan, a gay Republican (though not a Bush fan) and also my favorite blogger, writes as a refutation of a similar statement:

Notice two things. First, the equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction. For people who believe this, of course Kerry was out of line. That's why Rove's base is so outraged. But if you don't believe this, it's no different than, say, if a candidate were to mention another candidate's son in the Marines. Or if, in a debate on immigration, a pro-immigrant candidate mentioned Kerry's immigrant wife. You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That's why it's a Rorschach test. Secondly, Mary Cheney isn't private. She ran gay outreach for Coors, for pete's sake. She appears in public with her partner. Her family acknowledges this. She's running her dad's campaign! Whatever else this has to do with - and essentially, it has to do whether you approve of homosexuality or not - privacy is irrelevant.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Draginol

on Oct 15, 2004

When Edwards brought it up, one might think it was off the cuff.

The fact that Kerry brought it up means it was a talking point somewhere. The coincidence is too great. Some focus group figured out that it was to their political advantage to bring up Cheney's daughter so they made a point to bring it up in both debates. That's part of why it's so disgusting.

drmiler

on Oct 15, 2004

Reply #4 By: blogic - 10/15/2004 5:57:32 AM
Unless someone is actually using their family in a political campaign to assist in gaining votes, then that family is entitled to privacy

First of all, Mary Cheney has been active all year stumping for her father.

Second, Mary Cheney is the Director of her father's campaign.

Third, Mary Cheney is openly gay -- she's been a coordinator of gay outreach efforts for her father's campaign, and worked as a liaison to the gay community for the Coors Brewing Company.

Here's what Andrew Sullivan writes:

blogic, To be very honest I could really care less what "Andrew Sullivan" writes. What Kerry did was flat out and out WRONG! That was an underhanded, unnessisary dig at the VP's family.

JillUser

on Oct 15, 2004

The thing is, Kerry could have made the point just as well without naming a name. It was calculated and sleazy of both Edwards and Kerry. Why use specifics? I'll tell you why. They want to point out to any religious right wingers that might not know that Cheney has a gay daughter that Cheney isn't on their side when it comes to that issue.

Sleazy and uncalled for. That is all I have to say about that.

OutlawVoter

on Oct 15, 2004

If I am wrong correct me but this is the same rhetoric that the democrats. They have brought up Cheney's daughter during the Clinton/Bush race. They have no shame. They complained that the relationship between dick and his daughter was strained and the democrats tried to show that it was because of Mr. Cheney's beliefs now they are trying an attack from another way. They have no Shame.

Lee1776

on Oct 15, 2004

I'm with Draginol.

I had missed the first part of the debate, so I didn't see him say it. When people brought it up in blogs I thought that OK, it was a little poor taste to bring it up in a debate, but no problem.

But sense then the news has shown the clip repeatedly. I think most of the reaction to this is how he said it, not that he did say it. He delivered the line with the long pause and the look of someone about to deliver a sucker punch. I remember when Edward said it and it was not the focus of the discussion. But when Kerry said it, he used it as a main point of an answer. Maybe because Edward is a slick talker it didn't sound so bad, but boy when Kerry said it, it sounded just mean.

But also bringing up some ones children in a debate would be like saying Chelsea got beat by an ugly stick. Everybody respected children (adults children also) in the past. Why do we have to change that now? Mary is not running for office. When she does (which I think she will), then she is fair game. Just another low for the DNC.

That's My Two Cents

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 15, 2004

Would it have been acceptable for Bush to answer the question by saying "Well you know John Edwards' daughter is a lesbian and they accept and love her." I don't think it would so acceptable with the DNC than.

You don't involve your opponent's children in the political competition.

- Grim X

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!