Friday, October 15, 2004

Hugh Hewitt’s Virtual Symposium # 3

This week’s question from Hugh:
How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage? John Kerry's refusal to apologize for abusing Mary Cheney's privacy, his campaign manager's blunt declaration that Ms. Cheney is "fair game," and Elizabeth Edwards' accusation that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter have sparked bipartisan outrage.
Kerry’s blunder, and his refusal to apologize for it, gives yet another clear indication of the true character of this man. That John Edwards foreshadowed his remarks, and that Cahill provided us with an epilogue (not to mention comments by John Edwards' wife), give us clear indication that such remarks were not impromptu. This has all the markings of being a carefully designed attack. One of the great lies perpetrated on the American people in recent times is that of the Democratic Party being the savior of the masses… the great liberator of the downtrodden, hungry, sick, and oppressed in our society. If there is a liberator, then there must be an oppressor. Hence, the Republican Party is continually castigated as the Great Evil, the liberation from which can only come about through the Democratic Party. The Great Evil cares nothing for the oppressed, whether it be their economic status, healthcare, access to abortion providers, or civil rights. The Great Evil is fueled by hatred, fundamentalism, bigotry, and intolerance. Or so we’re told. Within such a structure of belief, one of the most sensible attacks on the leaders of the Great Evil would be to point out how hypocritical they are. Should we be surprised, then, that the likes of Kerry, Cahill, and Edwards mount an offensive attempting to pull back the curtain on the so-called hypocrisy of the Vice President and his wife? Should we really be surprised that the extremists of the Left see no problem with considering children of their opponents “fair game”? If there is still hope, it is that America may finally be able to clearly see that the current leaders, of a historically reputable political party, have debased themselves and their constituents. They will see that the same party which professes tolerance, yet drags an opponent’s lesbian daughter into the limelight, is the same party which claims to be concerned for the safety of Americans, yet views terrorism as simply a potential nuisance.

5 comments:

Paul said...

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Vice-President raised the issue of his daughter's sexuality in August, or that the Vice-President wasn't outraged by the mention when Edwards made it (he thanked Edwards in fact) or even after the debate until he learned that outrage would play well. No, let's focus on two key aspects:

1. Kerry isn't exploiting any misfortune within the candidates' families. No mention of the Bush twins' underage drinking (because that's what kids do, singling out them would be unfair), or of some other 'flaw' in character. He mentioned that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, a simple fact without negative connotation.

2. More tellingly, Mary Cheney is a political figure, the head of the Vice-President's half of the campaign. If she wants to be a private citizen that's fine, and should be respected, but she has put herself out there.

As to this nuisance thing, well Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (Deputy Director for Coalition), Adam Ereli (Deputy Spokesman, Department of State), and Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal (vice director for operations, Department of Defense) have all used that word in the war of terror. Are they all dangerous?

Furthermore, Bush has very reasonably said that we can't "win" the war on terror. If we can't win, and we can't reduce it to a nuisance, what nightmare does Bush plan for us?

Rusty said...

Paul,

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Vice-President raised the issue of his daughter's sexuality in August, or that the Vice-President wasn't outraged by the mention when Edwards made it (he thanked Edwards in fact) or even after the debate until he learned that outrage would play well.What reference in August?

Re-read the transcript of the VP debate. Cheney had two options: respond with anger, or "walk away." The transcript reveals he chose to move off the subject quickly.

His outrage was not because of John Edwards remarks but because of the combined remarks of John Edwards, John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill, and Elizabeth Edwards.Kerry isn't exploiting any misfortune within the candidates' families... He mentioned that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, a simple fact without negative connotation.I disagree.

More tellingly, Mary Cheney is a political figure, the head of the Vice-President's half of the campaign. If she wants to be a private citizen that's fine, and should be respected, but she has put herself out there.I saw Kerry's daughters stumping for him on MTV. The Bush daughters are also involved in their father's campaign. So are you saying they're all "fair game"?

As to this nuisance thing, well Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (Deputy Director for Coalition), Adam Ereli (Deputy Spokesman, Department of State), and Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal (vice director for operations, Department of Defense) have all used that word in the war of terror. Are they all dangerous?In my opinion, if they view the war on terror as a war on nuisance, then they misunderstand it completely.

...Bush has very reasonably said that we can't "win" the war on terror. If we can't win, and we can't reduce it to a nuisance, what nightmare does Bush plan for us?That's not all Bush said on the subject...

Paul said...

I disagree That seems to be the crux of this, for everyone. If you feel that Ms Cheney did something 'wrong' then this is an outrage. If you're a member of a party that wants to amend the constitution to discriminate against an entire class of people (following the proud history of discrimination against native americans and slaves, of course) then the mention of lesbianism is just wrong.

Mary Cheney is a political figure who happens, through no 'fault' of her own, without any hint of 'weakness', without any malice towards anyone's God, is a lesbian. If she doesn't want to be mentioned in a political campaign she shouldn't work on one.

Bonnie said...

Paul, the problem I see with Kerry's remark is that it was a very personal one; it was an assumption as to how Mary Cheney privately views her lesbianism, or the origin of it. It's just, a, well, inappropriate thing to speculate about in a very, very public forum.

But that said, I also think that the whole brouhaha is more likely a result of unfortunate remarks/emotional reaction/personal interpretation or misinterpretation at a highly-charged time regarding a highly-charged issue, than any sort of planned attack on either side. And I hope I'm right :-) But of course I could be wrong!

Paul said...

I don't think there are many openly, happily homosexual people who think they 'decided' to be gay, so insofar as Kerry said that she was born that way, well I think she'd agree. I do think it was a poor choice of example, not because it was 'wrong' but because it's just not particularly relevant (he could have picked any gay person) and therefore automatically seems to be political gamesmanship. But unless Ms Cheney resigns as director of vice-presidential operations I'd say she's a legitimate, though poorly chosen, subject of discussion.