October 15, 2004
HOW LONG UNTIL SOMEONE WRITES THAT HE LOST THE DEBATE?:
Poll Shows Disapproval of Cheney Daughter Reference (Richard Morin, October 15, 2004, Washington Post)
An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, according to the latest Washington Post tracking survey.Nearly two in three likely voters -- 64 percent -- said Kerry's comment was "inappropriate," including more than four in 10 of his own supporters and half of all swing voters. A third -- 33 percent -- thought the remark was appropriate.
As the polls settle back, quite predictably, to about a five point lead for the President, which is where they were before the debates, the media seems to have decided that the inevitable can only be explained by the Cheney's daughter comment. This is patently silly, but it will be well worth tolerating the nonsense just because it will make folks like Andrew Sullivan apoplectic when the president "rides a homosexual to a second term."
MORE:
Guerriero attacks Bush and Cheney for "feigning outrage" over discussion of Mary Cheney's sexuality (The Advocate, 10/16/04)
CNN reports that the head of the gay political group Log Cabin Republicans has come out angrily against the Bush-Cheney campaign for "feigning outrage" over Sen. John Kerry's comments in Wednesday night's presidential debate regarding Mary Cheney's homosexuality while asking that President Bush "stop attacking gay families on the campaign trail." Patrick Guerriero, interviewed on CNN's American Morning Friday, acknowledged that Kerry was "not wise" to bring up Mary Cheney in response to a question during the debate about homosexuality. But Guerriero also pointed out that Republicans "who are expressing outrage at the debate comments really have been outrageous themselves.""The reality is the type of outrage that is being expressed by some Republicans should be expressed at themselves," said Guerriero. "They've decided to use gay families as wedge issues across America in swing states--that is truly outrageous."
What feigning? We're pro-closet. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 15, 2004 9:42 PM
I didn't think Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter was a low-blow as much as it was just stupid. Edwards did, basically, the same thing in the veep debate and received plenty of grief over it... Why turn around and, a week later, do it over again? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Posted by: H. Ratliff at October 15, 2004 9:53 PMI think history will decide Kerry lost all three debates. The important thing coming out of any presidential debate are the critical sound bites or gaffs. In the first debate it was Kerry's "global test" which he is still trying to back out of. In the third debate it appears to be Kerry's reference to Cheney's daughter. After each debate, Kerry has had to go on the defense to correct the errors he made.
Posted by: jd watson at October 15, 2004 10:25 PMSullivan may have defended Kerry (and John Edwards), but what can he say about the petty, haughty comments of Elizabeth Edwards?
She brings new meaning to the words "fat @%&*#".
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 15, 2004 10:27 PMI suspect that the Log Cabin guys are the sort who need the attention that comes from being shocking and different. Being gay and Republican no longer seems radical, so now they become anti-Bush gay Republicans. It's worth a few headlines...
Posted by: John Weidner at October 16, 2004 12:14 AMYou know, it could be that, like Howard Stern, Kerry and Edwards just have the hots for young lesbian babes (feel free to drop in your own refrences here about any connection between that and the candidates' wives...)
Posted by: John at October 16, 2004 12:18 AMH. Ratliff: Pat Cadell's theory is that it was a way for Dems to muddy the waters over gay marriage, which is costing them support among Blacks.
I'm surprised that Andrew Sullivan doesn't see what's wrong with this, but then I was surprised when he flipped for Kerry.
It's not that the gayness aspect, per se, that bothers me. It's 1) talking about something personal regarding your opponent's children, 2) trying to use that in an argument against your opponent, then 3) claiming there's something wrong with your opponent when they take offense.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 16, 2004 1:28 AMKerry's comment is well on its way to becoming this year's freeing of Poland.
And we were promised that the "Smirking Gunslinger" was the one who had to worry about saying stupid things that would get him into trouble. I want a refund.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 16, 2004 1:46 AMBy shoehorning Mary Cheney into one of his typically convoluted answers, Kerry was trying in his ham-handed, high-hatted way to dampen turnout among evangelical voters. What Kerry fails to understand about evangelicals is that they have gay relatives, neighbors and acquaintances whom they love, respect and admire just as non-evangelicals do. They just see homosexual behavior as sinful and pray that these people near and dear to them see the error of their ways. There is no desire on their part to make gays wear pink triangles and put them in concentration camps.
Kerry can't see evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews in any other than a 2-dimensional framework. But then to Kerry if you're not a graduate of a Swiss boarding school and to the manner born, he doesn't even deign to remember your name.
Posted by: Bart at October 16, 2004 6:52 AMAh, yes. Andrew Sullivan. The Liza Minelli of the Center Right.
Real Conservatives: Vote for Dick
Andrew Sullivan: Vote your dick.
Posted by: George at October 16, 2004 11:07 AM"Ah, yes. Andrew Sullivan. The Liza Minelli of the Center Right."
I think he is more an Arianna Huffington.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 16, 2004 5:51 PMBut he is turning into Phyllis Diller.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 16, 2004 11:15 PM