Coordinated by whom? A rather small independent group buying $23K of ads in the Onion?

Precisely because the Democrats are pretty sensitive to backfiring, I'd say this is a few people (like Nader) whose agenda is more about their own egos' needs than electing John Kerry. If it were legal (which it isn't, I don't think), I imagine Kerry would ask them to stop. No, I don't think it's despicable, but it's almost certainly counterproductive.

What do you think of the Texas GOP's campaign to outlaw oral sex? Do we get to put that on the table? (Hmmm, possible poor imagery, that)

Um, did you read the article? It's a small-bore online campaign launched by the same guy whose been running, er, the same campaign for a long time now. And here, yet again, we have the word "attack." Very strange.

Talk about issues and policies all you want. But there is no need to use her sexuality as a pawn in political campaigns.

And no, this isn't the same thing as Clinton -- for whom I voted twice.

Yes, this is an attack, Praktike. And I think you know damn well that is true.

And no, I'm not disgusted by discussion of gay -- or other modes -- of sex. So let's not go there, okay? We don't need to play Gross Out -- this is a forum for grownups.

The reality is that Kerry's ploy in the debate reduces a woman who is NOT running for office to a thing to be used and exploited for political gain. I detest that no matter who is being exploited and who is doing the exploitation.

I particularly detest it when the author of it then disingenuously claims he was speaking with respect.

Bullshit.

Yes, it is indecent, note however that this kind of talk about Mary Cheney and others has been going on for months in the gay press, e.g., www.advocate.com, www.washblade.com, www.365gay.com, Planet Out columns and others. I have not heard this talking point at Democratic Party conferences; they seem to prefer avoiding gay issues.

It has more to do with a take-no-prisoners approach to outing people who work for, or are, conservative GOP legislators, one sample of this here.

Not a Democratic Party tactic, so expect it to go on, and go on, after the election, no matter who wins.

Robin,

I understand and sympathize with your outrage. I'm very uncomfortable with outing myself.

But it is also outrageous for you to write "Today it become apparent that Kerry's language launched a coordinated attack aimed at forcing Mary Cheney to oppose the proposed ban on gay marriage".

Look at the following article in the Advocate dates 2/18/04. In NO way does the campaign which you have linked to have ANY causal connection to Kerry's language.

Please fix this erroneous linkage.

Let's see if I can unpack my anger and make some of the reasons clear here.

Kerry's comment, his obnoxious justification and this cartoon series reek of the objectification and exploitation of female sexuality that I've stood against my entire life.

Want some particulars? We could start with me at 18, mugged and sexually assaulted one night as I cut across campus from a late study session. The local law enforcement personnel suggested that us "hippie girls" had it coming and probably liked it. No serious inquiry was every made to find my assailant.

We could add a graduate degree in Divinity from a major seminary and candidacy for ordination in a denomination which was nearly in civil war over the then-very-recent first such ordinations. The older man who suggested that my modest clerical shirt with high collar, and my long full skirt, was "sexually provocative" during liturgy. You can take that as a small icon of 4 very frustrating years.

Or my work doing family, marriage and child counselling in parishes, including with abused kids, under the guidance of a priest and his wife, both of whom were skilled and caring therapists.

Or volunteer work on crisis lines.

Or ... but that would take me into details of my political activity in the past, and I do not choose to make that public here.

I AM PISSED that anyone -- male or female, from either party -- thinks Mary Cheney's sexuality is up for public grabs and uncaring exploitation.

Period. It's that simple. And the more I think about it, the angrier I get.

The full jingle goes:

Once upon a time, Dick's daughter was out
Dick's daughter stayed out after Dick was sworn in
Then Dick came out to help Bush make amends
Dick's daughter came out to help Dick run again
To Dick and his daughter: You won't $%#@ us again.

I really don't think the Kerry campaign would approve of this, because no way are they as stupid as those spam artists at dearmary.com, who call this witless crap a "Final Call to Conscience."

Robin, I think you should calm down and think for a while. The real outrage is: why does the GOP think that Mary Cheney doesn't deserve equal rights under the law?

Read this.

In response to the link JC provided, I've added an update comment and changed the language in my post to remove reference to a coordinated campaign. Thanks for pointing me to the Advocate article.

I do not in the least let either Kerry or the cartoonist and the people pushing this ad out of range of my anger, however.

Remember, "I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was my friend. And you, sir, are no John Kennedy!"

Well, I have gay and lesbian friends, some of whom are activists. I agree with them on some issues, disagree on others -- but not one of them would stoop to disrespect and use a lesbian this way -- in the name of gay issues.

Angry? I'm just warming up!!!

"JC disputes that the article's assertion that the cartoon attacks on Mary Cheney and Kerry's language about her are linked..."

JC, or anyone, may dispute away. The public saw Edwards "open" the issue. They then saw Kerry reiterate it, igniting a controversy. Such an on-the-heels ad will be mostly connected, willy nilly, to the DNC.

praktike: "why does the GOP think that Mary Cheney doesn't deserve equal rights under the law?

Why doesn't John Kerry?

While I do not think that Kerry would care to associate himself with this idiotic dearmary.com ad, his supporters might have a shred of a point if Kerry had the guts to support gay marriage. Which he does not.

Kerry tries to have it both ways here - and his supporters naturally do not see why he shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways: "Of course Kerry has to say that, but that's not what he really means ..." This is standard double-talk, backed up by standard rationalization, and it's so practiced that it's become second nature.

If Mary Cheney is a coward and a hypocrite, then, what does that make Kerry? (But of course, I ask this in vain ... everybody knows that the name-calling privilege works only one way ...)

Praktike,

As usual, good link. The head of the Log Cabin Republicans said better what I had been attempting to say in a more clumsy way, in the previous thread - in fact, it's so good, I'm going to quote -

"Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Democratic presidential nominee Kerry was "not wise" to refer to the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney during the answer to a question about homosexuality during a presidential debate Wednesday night. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the debates)

But he said 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. They've decided to use gay families as wedge issues across America in swing states -- that is truly outrageous," he told CNN's "American Morning."

So, again, WHICH is more outrageous - which is more hurtful?

Say every democrat gives you the point that Kerry shouldn't have brought up Cheney's family - because this isn't about Cheney's family. Is this LESS or MORE outrageous than the attempt to deny full rights to homosexuals across the country, and the CYNICAL attempt to use the FMA as a wedge issue?

I think its pretty clear.

Here's a link from a young one's take, stating something similar to my view the same way.

Ezra's take.

You know, I started simmering on this issue during the VP debate. I began really heating up when Kerry made his remark during the debate.

And then came the truly insulting rationalization he gave.

And THEN came Edwards' outrageous claim that if Kerry is elected, people with spinal cord injuries will get up out of their wheelchairs and walk again.

You know, that was a slimy thing to do -- because there is absolutely no reason to believe it could happen. I worked for one intense summer on the nephrology ward of a major hospital and trauma center. The kidney patients I ministered to started dying every 3 days and only painful and debilitating dialysis brought them back. The cruel cycle was incredibly hard on them and on their caregivers, because there was no hope it could get better. Spinal cord suffers aren't quite so hopeless, but what Edwards did played on so remote a hope as to be beneath contempt IMO.

And then we get Elizabeth Edwards' gag-producing claim that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter's sexuality and she, wonderful kind accepting soul that she is, is sad about this.

Bullshit. Have I mentioned BULLSHIT ???

The new ad attacks on Mary Cheney were just the last straw for me.

Look: what makes us humans worth living with is when, among other things, we protect certain aspects of peoples' humanity from attack and exploitation. John Edwards' comments about people getting out of wheelchairs and walking exploits the deepest hopes of people in an incredibly cynical way.

And the whole thing around Mary Cheney is as bad, or worse.

THAT's what this is about for me - not who is for or against gay marriage, but the basic decencies each human being deserves to have respected.

Glen, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting civil unions but not marriage.

So now it's about basic decency? Well I'll see your basic decency, and raise you equal rights under the law.

Uh huh. A real live person isn't NEARLY as important as a concept that reasonable people can disagree about, even as they feel passionate about it.

Mmmm hmmmmm.

She's just a lesbian after all. Besides, she's a Republican and doesn't really count, a worthwhile sacrifice for the cause.

[scathing comments removed here]

You know, one other thing that pisses me off about this whole Mary Cheney bit.

Gays and lesbians have struggled for a long time for acceptance by straight families. Whatever else you think about Dick and Lynne Cheney, they have both made it clear they love and respect their daughter.

To attempt to drive a wedge between Mary and her parents is despicable. I don't care WHAT the issue is.

What's this "sacrfice" and "attack" business? Who's attacking Mary Cheney? I think it's telling that that kind of language is being repeated here. Look, people are trying to give Mary Cheney and thousands of Americans like her the right to visit her partner in the hospital, to leave things to her partner when she dies. I think that's a good thing. The people that are driving a wedge here are the people that are trying to take away those rights forever. This would be the first time since prohibition that a constitutional amendment specifically took away a right.

Look, Mary Cheney is quite capable of standing up for her rights as she sees them.

It's insulting, condescending and disingenuous to suggest that the slimy tactics and comments used by Kerry and the Edwards this past week are something she should embrace.

That's rationalization of the most ludicrous kind.

As for the "attack" language, I didn't originate it. Mary Beth Cahill's comment that Mary Cheney's sexuality is "fair game" says it all.

We shoot game. I wasn't aware that it was a Democratic practice to shoot lesbians for political advantage, even if the shooting is verbal rather than ballistic.

JC -

With regard to Pandagon's article ("Republicans know Americans support much that they deeply oppose") - who is kidding who here?

Everybody knows which way the political wind blows on gay marriage. In Missouri, where the second debate took place, up to 70% of the public supported the FMA in various polls. Even liberal Washington and Massachusetts have been beating the drums against gay marriage.

In none of the debates did Kerry elaborate on his comment "The President and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position." He did not share any nuance about civil unions. He did not elaborate on his tortured stance for (or against, who can keep track?) the Massachusetts amendment.

Let Kerry get his courage screwed to the sticking place, and then he can start lecturing other people.

Let's just turn over this rock and see what crawls out, eh? First Dick Cheney, and then George Bush (feigning sympathy) in the debates each mention the emotional struggles/mental illness of Julia Thorne, John Kerry's first wife.

What would the reaction have been?

The most disgusting (and pitiful) aspect of all this is the obviously-calculated nature of bringing Mary Cheney into this all. If it had been some person they had known, and who had given permission -- even Massachusetts colleague Barney Frank -- it would have been tacky, but not revolting.

I guess they don't teach basic civility and manners in Swiss boarding schools, and two women have failed to civilise the cad. He can't be changed, and probably won't even be humbled by the thorough drubbing he so richly deserves.

Glen,

One small point regarding commenting, er, etiquette, if you will (about me, not about you). I'm never sure what to do when linking to other people. I'm still somewhat new at this (5 months?) - how does it work? When I link to something (in my head at least) I'm not agreeing to necessarily everything in an article. Should I simply quote the part I agree with? Or should I let the other person's "voice" speak for itself? For example, I was speaking to "outrage" (and really looking at the last paragraph of Ezra's article) not to "Republicans know Americans support much that they deeply oppose". What would have been the better tack?

Any advice on this would be great.

Now I believe that your point is that Kerry supports the same view as Bush - but isn't saying so, because he is a coward. This I think is clearly wrong in the following way.

Bush SUPPORTS the FMA amendment to the constitution.
Kerry DOESN'T support the FMA amendment to the constitution, and has clearly said so, but does support civil unions.

Andrew Sullivan has spoken eloquently about this, but if I recall what he has said, the FMA DOES NOT PROTECT CIVIL UNIONS.

To believe that it does, is to fool yourself. In this sense, support of the FMA is to support the status of 2nd class citizenship for homosexuals, correct?

Also, if you want to speak about cowardice - when all the families gather on the stage, aren't Bush/Cheney COWARDS to not have Mary Chaney and her partner up there with them? Cheney clearly loves his daughter, and is proud of her and her talents - why are both Bush and Cheney afraid to have her on stage?

BTW - If Cheney's name has to be dragged into every statement about gay marriage, this is a nicer way to do it (from the January Democratic Candidates Debate in New Hampshire):

DEAN: It's a complicated, complicated issue. We chose not to do gay marriage. We chose to do civil unions. I think that position, actually, is very similar to Dick Cheney's, who thinks every state ought to be able to do what they want.

This nice bit of finesse speaks volumes about the political climate surrounding gay marriage - not even Howard Dean wants to run left of that wind. Kerry spoke not a word about gay marriage in this debate, nor about civil unions. Dean and Edwards were questioned about it, and both of them objected:

DEAN: You're going to keep asking him about gay marriage, and John Edwards is absolutely right. This isn't about gay marriage; this is about jobs.

You can justify the Mary Cheney references however you want, but don't try to the Democratic Party's bragging rights on this issue, because they've got none.

JC, what Mary Cheney and her father do, or don't do, about her participation in the Bush/Cheney campaign is their decision. I'm quite sure that if she wanted to make an issue of it, she could.

Part of life is deciding what tradeoffs we will each make -- and then accepting responsibility for those tradeoffs. There really is no evidence that her sexuality and her love for her family are in any way at odds with one another -- but if there were, that is her choice to balance as an able adult.

Mary Cheney is not a victim of her father or his campaign. To think otherwise is to treat her as a child or a prisoner -- and by all accounts, she is a strong capable woman who is comfortable with her position in the campaign and with her partner, both.

She has become, however, the object of contemptible exploitation by the Kerry/Edwards campaign. And I'm going to keep calling that as I see it.

JC - "In this sense, support of the FMA is to support the status of 2nd class citizenship for homosexuals, correct?"

According to Kerry, not if it allows civil unions. This is the position Kerry settled on regarding the Massachusetts ban on gay marriage:

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

Thus spoke John Kerry on February 26th, in that all-important swing state of Ohio.

To answer Pratike’s question "why does the GOP think that Mary Cheney doesn't deserve equal rights under the law?”

Personally I don’t believe that the GOP thinks lesbian and gays don’t deserve equal rights under the law. Civil unions affording gays and lesbians the same rights as married couples would work just fine for me.

To me the issue of marriage is based on religious practice. It’s that simple. We can argue all day long as to what / which religious practice to base marriage on if you want to but suffice it to say that the religious practice of marriage in the states is based on Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Marriage as a religious institution has been with us long before the inception of the USA and it has always been regarded as a religious practice.

A funny thing happened on the way to the altar though. Big government decided they would use religious records as a method of tracking people and lineage. They also decided a justice of the peace was ample enough to perform a marriage yet they held to the basic foundations that the marriage was sanctioned by the church regardless of cleric tradition.

Having said that I for one do not wish to destroy the religious foundations of marriage which is precisely what gay and lesbian marriage proponents are threatening. If gay and lesbian marriage becomes acceptable I see the next law suit on the horizon as being directed at the church because they refuse to acknowledge or perform gay and lesbian marriages.

So where does that leave us? Civil unions are a much better proposal in my opinion. Those married by the church can be recognized by the church, state and federal government. Those joined by the justice of the peace can enjoy the same benefits under civil union status with out church recognition. Marriage and civil unions can certainly be dealt with from a ideological stand point with out offending everyone. Keep in mind this only deals with status aspects that can be managed by humans but the status aspect is only the tip of the iceberg.

Other issues such as adoption by gay and lesbian civil unions are another matter. I’ll not deny anyone a lifestyle they are compelled or choose to lead. I do however retain reservations on adoptions by gay and lesbian civil unions. Until someone can convince me that I have the right to play G-d and give to those that which can only be created naturally by a man and a woman I fall adamantly on the side of mother nature.

But USMC, the GOP opposes civil unions. That's why the amendment, which Bush favors, prohibits states from allowing "the legal incidences" of marriage to gay couples.

The discussion the voters of the country will hold will not be about civil unions or anything else related to gays. It will be about how John Kerry and John Edwards treat the Cheney's daughter.

If not for this ad, the topic might have died this weekend. But if this ad does come out and attain noteriety, it will bode ill for the KE ticket. Praktike can play all the clever semantic games he wishes, but most Americans perceive that Kerry and Edwards have sought to attack the Bush Cheney ticket through Dick Cheney's daughter. The American people think ill of those who use such tactics and should this issue stay alive, their judgement will be clear on November 2.

Robin is right. Those of you who argue against her are wrongwrongwrong, because Mary Cheney is a candidate's daughter. That's it. If Kerry had all those altruistic motives the rest of you are attributing to him, then he should have been more sensitive and used a different example. Dick and Lynne Cheney can talk about their daughter-- Kerry and Edwards CANNOT.

Praktike can play all the clever semantic games he wishes

Thanks, I'll take that as my mandate.

Pratike
The amendment was not about gay and lesbian civil unions. The amendment was about gay and lesbian marriages.

The amendment was to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'll admit that the amendment does not confer rights of marriage by judicial decree to civil unions. It places those rights in the legislatures of the states as are the rights of marriage.

As we both know the amendment fell short on votes in a republican controlled house. One could certainly conclude that cooler heads are prevailing but it’s not the conclusion that I draw. The fact of the matter is the process for such an amendment to be enacted are heavily stacked against ratification. Personally I believe the FMA was proposed as a warning to counter judicial attacks on the institution of marriage and encourage state legislatures to deal with the issues of gay and lesbian relationships. If state legislatures get off their duffs and deal with the issue they can define the parameters of civil unions.

praktike - "... the GOP opposes civil unions."

Wrong. Many in the GOP oppose civil unions, but there is nothing in the platform about it, and the White House did not interpret FMA as banning civil unions. Bush was criticized by anti-gay groups after the State of the Union address for being "okay" with civil unions.

The public is not enthusiastic about civil unions, but a majority have come to support them (though still opposing gay marriage by 2-1). So the public knows the distinction.

Which doesn't mean the public was enthusiastic about FMA - as much as they dislike gay marriage, a majority opposes federal action to block it.

Hmmm. It looks deliberately ambiguous to me. Or the legal incidents thereof?

Pratike
Maybe this will help on the legal aspects of the amendment. Keep in mind this is from someone who is adamantly opposed to gay and lesbian marriage or civil unions. I don't agree with the position on gay and civil unions but I am however a proponent for the sanctity of marriage.

Robin
I'm sorry as it seems this thread has developed into more than just Mary Cheney being used as a pawn in the game of politics. Like you I'm just as irritated about the entire situation. My posted comments in the previous thread concerning Kerry's antics still apply.

As for the new ad attack I agree with you 100%.

And another thing.

Of all the people that deserve opprobrium for being anti-gay or whatever, I'd place George Bush far, far ahead here. Forget the FMA for a second. Did you know that Bush won his first campaign against Ann Richards in part when his staff publically accused Richards of hiring "avowed and activist homosexuals?" Plus ca change ...

I completely agree with Robin. I am particularly shocked that John Kerry used Dick Cheney's daughter to score political points against him. I have always thought that using the families of politicians to score political points against them was wrong and was just not done. The specific issue does not matter. One just doesn't do things like that. This traditional prohibition is good, as not many worthy people would enter politics if it meant that members of their family could be used as debating points against them. I understand that for some people here, in this case, the end justifies the means. I just totally disagree with these people.

I also think that both John Kerry's comment and the comments of his defenders, including some of the people commenting here, dehumanize Mary Cheney. They reduce her to her sexual orientation. When I look at Mary Cheney I see an attractive and successful young woman who undoubtably has many ideas, interests, passions, and quirks; judging from what I have heard and read, many people look at Mary Cheney and only see a lesbian. These people assign opinions to her based solely on her sexual orientation. By denying Mary Cheney the full complexity of her humanity, they dehumanize her just as surely as the bigots that they claim to excoriate.

Kerry acted like a Nazi. Nazis would use ANY means to get to power, even if molesting or destroying other peoples' lives. You can try and make a big smokescreen to save that utterly stupid Kerry fellow, but any decent person will despise such lowly attitude. And stop blaming others. Kerry said it, not anyone else. It was that stupid pseudo French nobleman (sorry, ignobleman).

For months we have been hearing questions about
Kerry 's behavior as a Navy officer. I've decided that Kerry is definitely NOT "a officer & a gentleman".

My boss, who is gay, doesn't want any of this stuff legalalized........but then I bet there are straight guys who also wish there was any such thing as marriage!

Sooner or later someone is going to have to explain how John Kerry's remark that Mary Cheney is a lesbian contitutes an attack. How does a remark about the objective fact of Mary's sexuality constitute an attack? Mary served as a gay outreach coordinator for Coors before the campaign. She is listed as a member of the BC2004 campaign. Dick Cheny and John Edwards have both made similar remarks. Any number of news commentators have commented on Mary's sexuality.

What was so novel or unique about Kerry's remark that turns an objective statement of fact into an attack? Kerry mentioned a well known fact that was directly related to the question Scheiffer asked. Kerry's answer was much more honest and on point than Bush's response. As far as the outrage over Cahill's remark that Mary Cheney's sexual orientation was fair game, the rest of Cahill's sentence was that Kerry had brought it up respectfully.

On Fox News Mort Kondrake said that the Democrats would be equally outraged if the Republicans did something like this. Maybe somebody can explain why the Democrats would be outraged if someone pointed out that Chrissy Gephardt was a lesbian. Where was Lynn and Dick Cheney's outrage over Alan Keyes calling Mary a "selfish hedonist"?

The mock outrage of the "right" and the mock indignation of the "left" over Kerry's comments, is a symptom or rank homophobia on the right and liberal guilt over not being homophobic on the left. With all due respect Robin, Kerry's remarks were in no way objectification or exploitation of female sexuality. How does accurately remarking that someone is a lesbian objectify, exploit and dehumanize them? Does Andrew Sullivan exploit his sexuality? Does remarking that Sullivan is gay objectify and dehumanize him?

OK. I just went to Sullivan's site and found a link to this article in the Weekly Standard by Bill Kristol.

"Leave aside the cheap, cold, calculating cynicism--and cruelty--in Kerry's appropriation of the alleged opinions of an opposing candidate's family member to try to embarrass his opponent. Leave aside the view Kerry and his campaign must have of millions of religious Americans if they think this particular McCarthyite moment will work."

Let's leave aside for the moment the question of whether or not Kristol's slant may be just a wee bit shrill. Now the mere mention that Mary is a lesibian is cheap, cold, calculating and cruel. Someone is going to have to explain how this is McCarthyism, because I fail to see the connection.

Who's trying to exploit Mary's sexuality now?

Jollybuddha.
A gratuitous remark about Gephardt's daughter's sexuality would have been equally despicable.
Candidates may talk about their own children-- not others' children. It is that simple. No amount of rationalization can make it ok.
This issue is an exemplar of the division between the parties. Didn't we all hear the same thing? But our intrepretations vary widely. Curiously, I had the same thing happen to me upon reading Sir Richard's letter in the Guardian. Due to my confirmational bias I began furiously trying to justify what is obviously a stupid act. My belief mechanisms were fully engaged. If it came from Dawkins it must be valid, right? This is happening to admirers of John Kerry. They seek to justify his remarks.
But the electorate is already deciding on their interpretation of Kerry's motives. Watch the polls.

Maybe, maybe if the question posed to Kerry had been about gay marriage, references to Mary Cheney would have been appropriate.

Maybe.

But the question was about strong women in Kerry's life. And in answering it, he chose not only to refer to Mary Cheney (who is not in his life at all), but to her sexuality -- and to presume to speak for her.

That's obnoxious, condescending and -- by many measures -- a sexist thing to do. How patrician of him to tell us what a woman (whom he doesn't know personally) thinks. Of course that's appropriate -- after all, if you know she's a lesbian you know everything important and useful about her. And if she hasn't spoken out on this issue, it must be because she's not as articulate as you, or perhaps she is cowed by her oppressive or hypocritical parents.

[gag]

Now put that performance in the context of Edwards' comments at the VP debate just prior, and his wife's insulting (and counterfactual) comments afterwards, and the pattern is clear.

Mary Cheney has not taken a high profile in this campaign, nor has she gone into hiding. She hasn't done a lot of campaigning among gays or lesbians, nor has she hidden her own orientation.

In other words, there was no reason for Edwards and especially Kerry to bring her or her sexual orientation up at all, except to score political points. And Elizabeth Edwards' remarks were totally gratuitous and insulting to my ear.

I say that as the feminist mother of a grown daughter whose politics and aesthetic are very different from mine -- and of whom I am proud.

Robin, Kerry's remark was not gratuitous. Let's review the facts.

"We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."
--John Kerry, responding to Bob Schieffer's question,
"Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"
in the third debate, October 13, 2004

Kerry's answer was a direct response to the question. If the question had been about gay marriage, Kerry's response would have been more unresponsive, not less.

Now maybe you and jinnderella can explain how Kerry's remark is any different from Dick Cheney's comments or the comments of any number of news commentators.

Basically you are claiming that it's OK for Dick Cheney to exploit his daughter's sexuality, but Kerry is a bad man if he responds.

jinnderella, your comment reveals your bias. Why would it be despicable to mention that Chrissy Gephardt is a lesbian? How is this known, objective fact despicable?

And Kerry needed to mention Mary Cheney why? And to presume to speak for her?

That is indeed gratuitous -- and insulting, the question notwithstanding.

If you don't get that, then there's a great deal about this situation you are missing. It has nothing to do with factuality -- and everything to do with condescension to and exploitation of a woman for political ends.

Frankly, I don't give a damn who does that, from which party -- it angers me deeply.

If I thought Cheney were exploiting his daughter or if I thought she did not approve of his statements, I'd be all over his case too. But clearly she does NOT object to her father's comments.

Kerry, OTOH, has no right to speak about her and her opinions on an intimate matter. He has not earned the right to do so through a close and approving relationship nor can he in any other way know exactly what her opinions are.

For him to act as if he does -- and then to justify his remarks as if they were respectful and caring -- is deeply offensive.

"If I thought Cheney were exploiting his daughter or if I thought she did not approve of his statements, I'd be all over his case too. But clearly she does NOT object to her father's comments."

Who's speaking for Mary Cheney now Robin? Do any of us know what Mary thinks about this issue?

Since you seem to think I am too dense to understand this issue because "there's a great deal about this situation you are missing" let me repeat the fundamental question.

Why was it despicable to mention that Mary Cheney is a lesbian?

Why would it be despicable to mention that Chrissy Gephardt is a lesbian?

Unless you agree with Liz Edwards that Lynn and Dick are ashamed of their daughter there was no insult intended and no reason to take umbrage at Kerry's remark.

Question to Bush: do you believe women should have a right to an abortion?

Answer: "Well, I think if you ask John Kerry's daughter, who had an abortion, she would say "Yes, women should have that right""

Question to Bush: do you believe gay marriage is dangerous for America?

Answer: "Well, actually I think divorce is a much more serious problem, and if you asked John Kerry's first wife, who he divorced, she would tell you what a painful experience it can be for both the couples involved and their children."

When asked for a personal opinion, it's considered tacky to bring up the personal experiences of your opposition's family. Of course, I have no clue if Kerry's daughter has ever had an abortion, and were I to find out from anyone other than Kerry's daughter herself, I would be rightly offended that an outside party chose to make a public issue of it. And not because abortion is shameful - at least according to some people - they're even selling t-shirts that say "I had an abortion".

As many people have pointed out, Kerry could have selected any number of other people to make an example of. His choice of Mary Cheney to "answer for him" was tacky. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's gay - I find it hard to credit the notion that there are any republic voters who didn't know that already - the offense comes from Kerry's use of his opponents family to score a point.

And he didn't answer the question! The question wasn't "Does Mary Cheney believe that homosexuality is a choice." The question was did HE believe homosexuality was a choice. Instead he answered on behalf of Mary Cheney.

JollyBuddah,

I was watching the debate when Kerry made his remark. It seemed pretty clear to me (or maybe I'm the dense one) that Kerry was playing political "gotcha" with somebody else's kid. As has been pointed out, he could have used any number of examples other than Mary Cheney. He was clearly trying to make the Bush administration look like hypocrites: "See! They oppose gay rights when one of them has a gay daughter." And it may also have been a calculated attempt to alienate the administration from its base: "See! You right wing religious folks can't really depend on these guys to further your agenda, one of them has a gay daughter!" That seems to me an especially hypocritical play to the very prejudices the democrats claim to abhor.

JollyBuddah

"Since you seem to think I am too dense to understand this issue"

I can't speak for Robin but I can certainly speak for myself.

”KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.”

Personally I’m not going to throw a hissy fit about Kerry mentioning Cheney’s daughter and stating that she is a lesbian. This is a known fact that has not been hidden from public view.

Where Kerry really falls short in his statement is he put words into Mary Cheney’s mouth. She may or may not agree with Kerry on his assessment. Now you could argue that Mary Cheney could come out and state she either agrees with Kerry’s statement or doesn’t. She wont and Kerry’s statement will stand as is simply because no matter what Mary Cheney says it puts her in the spot light and in direct confrontation not only from the public at large but from other gays and lesbians as well. Kerry put Mary in a damned if you do damned if you don’t spot and he had absolutely no right to do so. Kerry and his lack of civil conduct in one sentence made Mary Cheney the spokes person for all gays and lesbians without even asking her if she wanted that job.

Was it a cheap shot? Absolutely. I don’t think that you can argue that Kerry’s statement doesn’t literally beg Mary Cheney to resolve the question of choice or genetics for Kerry to affirm his own beliefs. Kerry did not have to single anyone out to get his point across yet he singled out Mary Cheney because he wanted to give some substantial validity to his statement by using the daughter of a political foe.

If anything he owes a public apology to Mary Cheney for putting his words into her mouth.

Can you produce any evidence of Mary Cheney ascribing to her lesbian tendency as being genetic? If not then Kerry had absolutely no right to put words into her mouth. Any other justification you can possibly think of short of proving the fact that Mary Cheney has ever said such a thing about herself publicly does make you dense.

Sometimes it really amazes me how some people can be so educated yet so lacking in civility.

Robin;

This whole thread and the alleged outrage you are expressing here appear highly manufactured.

The cartoon ad has nothing to do with Kerry or his comments, so linking them together as you are trying to do is dishonest.

My respect for Kerry and the party to which I have belonged for many years (3 decades) has plummeted.

My view is that Republicans are themselves using Mary Cheney as a political football in yet another effort to try to hang Kerry with his own words (thoughtfully re-interpreted by Repubs for mass consumption).

This routine is sooooo tiring, and desparate, and it ain't gonna work this time around. You want to have a real debate on the subject, fine, but clearly this is all about one thing...politics.

All of this mock outrage so clearly stands in direct contrast to everything that Republicans believe about gays and personal privacy that only the extremely gullible will be lured into thinking this is anything but just that.

Then again, I think that description fits the MSM pretty well...

Celeste, your questions are not comparable. You are ignoring the hypocrisy of the Bush adminstration's position.

Assuming the facts were accurate, the first question would be more analagous if one of Kerry's daughter had an abortion that Kerry paid for and yet he opposed other people being able to make the same choice for themselves or their daughter. The second question is even more of a dodge. You shift the question from gay marriage to divorce. That's not analagous at all.

And I don't find either question or answer offensive in and of themselves. The day when the adult children of candidates are off limits is long past, especially if they are part of the campaign. Whether or not Mary is a "high profile" member of BC04, she is part of the campaign.

I concede that it may have been more appropriate to use Chrissy Gephardt as an example, but the mock outrage is way out of proportion to Kerry's minor ethical trespass. Let's be candid. Lynn Cheney is exploiting Mary's sexuality far more than Kerry did. Dick Cheney's response in the Edwards debate was honest. Dick and Lynn Cheney's response to Kerry's statement is exploitive.

Since we're being ethically fair and balanced do you agree with Bill Kristol's comparison of Kerry's remark to McCarthyism? Is accurately remarking that someone is a lesbian comparable to falsely accusing someone of being a Communist? What kind of moral or ethical equivalance is that?

Well, Robin clearly takes umbrage at Kerry's and Edward's mention of Ms. Cheney's orientation, but not at Alan Keyes' characterization of her orientation as selfish hedonism. Puzzling as this inconsistency seems to me, Robin is expressing her personal opinion, which she links to her own background and upbringing. She is not describing an objective truth that anyone lacking her unique background need accept.

Kerry didn't "out" anybody. Mary Cheney wasn't in the closet.

Celeste's examples of Kerry's daughter's abortion and Kerry's divorced wife would be apt if (1) Kerry had previously brought these subjects up himself in a political presentation, the way Dick Cheney previously raised the topic himself of his daughter's orientation in Iowa, and (2) if Kerry's daughter Cheney used her open lesbianism to get a job with Coors as a liason to the L & G community. Since these conditions are not fulfilled, the analogies are inapt.

"daughter Cheney used her open lesbianism to get a job with Coors"

Sorry, should read: . . . daughter had used her abortion (or Kerry's first wife, her divorce) to get a job, the way Ms. Cheney used her open lesbianism . . ."

I don't see any hypocrisy in the Bush admin position. Bush isn't suggesting that Mary Cheney should be allowed to marry her partner, but other folks shouldn't. Or is the supposed hypocrisy in republicans 'allowing' gays in their party?

And again, the question wasn't a policy question. The question was pure and simply a request for the candidates' personal opinion, so Mary Cheney's personal or political activities have zilch to do with it. Kerry, rather than answer "Yes, I think people are born gay," had to put words in Mary's mouth, rather than answer for himself. Therefore, when asked if a candidate believes abortion should be a right is entirely analogous.

The hypocrisy was when Bush dodged the question. The problem is that there is a homophobic element in the Republican party that actually believes that being gay or lesbian is an individual moral failure. That's why Bush dodged the question.

For these morally and ethically challenged people the fact that Mary is a lesbian somehow reflects poorly on Dick and Mary Cheney. Judging by Lynn's over reaction maybe she is one of these people. I think Kerry and Edwards are being far too charitable in giving the Cheney's credit for how well they've dealt with their daughter's sexual orientation.

Go back and review Kerry's actual statement. Are you also offended that Kerry accused Mary of being "one of God's children"? If not, exactly what is the ethical distinction between saying that Mary is one of God's children and saying that she is a lesbian?

If you want to discuss ethics we should also examine the moral cowardice President Bush displayed by avoiding the question.

JollyBuddah mis-attributes motive and emphasis to me and keeps trying to switch the topic.

I object to:

The multiple occasions, within days of one another, during which the K/E campaign used Mary Cheney's sexual orientation to score political points.

Attributing words and opinions to her when a) Kerry is not close to her and b) she has chosen not to speak for herself (and is quite capable of so doing).

The disrespect and condescension that is implicit in those actions.

VT can write all he likes about "mock" outrage and about Republicans, but neither description fits me. I am not a Republican and my outrage on this is real.

Alan Keyes is a jerk, but he's not the topic of the post under discussion here.

Maybe, maybe if the question posed to Kerry had been about gay marriage, references to Mary Cheney would have been appropriate.

I don't agree here. The basic problem is not with bringing up the fact that Mary Cheney's a lesbian, or with how apropos or otherwise the reference is; it's in using Mary as an involuntary political weapon against her father. It's tacky. It would be the same if any of the candidates' children were used against their parent in debate.

(The fact that Kerry ended up not answering the question made me wonder whether mentioning Mary was simply an ad hoc way of avoiding a repeat of Bush's "I don't know". But following on the Edwards mention, plus Mary Beth Cahill's remark, makes me think it was planned.)

For these morally and ethically challenged people the fact that Mary is a lesbian somehow reflects poorly on Dick and Mary Cheney. Judging by Lynn's over reaction maybe she is one of these people. I think Kerry and Edwards are being far too charitable in giving the Cheney's credit for how well they've dealt with their daughter's sexual orientation.

You know, I find this assumption (that only shame can account for people not wanting Kerry et al to pound on Mary Cheney's sexual orientation) to be tiresome -- and naive.

Not too long after the Summer of Love days in San Francisco, I met my husband's grandmother in the city. Svanhild was a very Proper Lady in all ways, not one to tolerate coarseness or poor manners and in her late 70s was still stunningly beautiful.

Discussion turned to the hippies and all the other experimentations of my generation, at which point she startled me greatly by saying:

"Sex, sex, sex -- your generation thinks you invented it. I've forgotten more about sex than you young people have learned yet."

There are plenty of people like her alive today. You are not only presumptuous, but also incredibly ill-informed, if you equate public modesty and common decency with discomfort about all the ways in which people live their lives.

"Alan Keyes is a jerk, but he's not the topic of the post under discussion here."

No, the topic is bashing Kerry and Edwards for bringing up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in a way that could politically embarrass the POTUS. The topic is not that it is generically wrong for a politician to do this (else Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes, both Republicans, would be liable to the same criticism), but that it is wrong for Democratic candidates to do this. I understand.

Nope, wrong again Joel.

The topic is bashing Kerry and Edwards for exploiting Mary Cheney's sexual orientation and treating her with condescension and disrespect.

As I've said about half a dozen times here, I don't care who does it -- I don't like it.

And dragging in Alan Keyes as if to say "they all do it" smacks of trying to let the K/E campaign off the hook. I'm not going to do that, if only because of the repeated offenses in a single week.

Alan Keyes is the Republicans' problem. But I have been a (usually registered) Democrat for nearly 35 years now, so when the Democratic candidates do this -- and when Kerry pretends he was being respectful and caring -- i'm going to call them on it. There's more to the Democratic party than the current ticket and its current platform and tendencies.

Robin;

Still don't understand whether your outrage is real or manufactured.

1) Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

2) Mary Cheney is Dick Cheney's daughter.

3) Dick Cheney has mentioned Mary's sexual orientation in public on several recent occassions.

4) Mary Cheney is working for BC04.

5) Mary Cheney is perhaps the most high-profile openly gay individual working for the Bush campaign.

6) John Kerry chose to illustrate his belief that homosexuality is not a acquired trait by invoking the name of Mary Cheney perhaps in an effort to drive his point home specifically to a group that largely views homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice".

7) His choice of Mary Cheney rather than another openly gay individual to illustrate his point can be entirely explained by 1-6 with no further need to invoke any further sinister meaning.

I will reiterate my central point that your purposeful and dishonest (as JC points out) attempt to link the distasteful cartoon with the Kerry campaign reveals that the true source of your anger is not John Kerry's comments but just John Kerry.

...exploiting Mary Cheney's sexual orientation and treating her with condescension and disrespect.

I cannot discern a shred of disrespect in either Kerry's or Edwards comments. That you seem to want to pretend otherwise is the main source from which my skepticism towards your arguments springs.

AND you and the Republicans are using Mary Cheney as much or more than you are accusing Democrats of doing.

Should we be outraged about this as well?

VT, you apparently have no conception (or pretend you don't) of how insulting it is to have Kerry put words in Mary Cheney's mouth about a highly personal topic. It would be presumptuous to do that to anyone. To do it to the daughter of one's political opponent is particularly galling to this 53 year old feminist with an adult daughter of her own.

You, JollyBuddha and others would like that element of the situation to go away. You would like me to accept that all that happened was a recitation of the publicly-known facts about Mary Cheney's sexual orientation.

But that is NOT all that happened, not on the part of Kerry and not on the part of Elizabeth Edwards afterwards. What happened included the deliberate exploitation of a political opponent's daughter to score political points -- using her sexual orientation to do it with.

I've watched, thought about and voted in presidential elections for a good long while now. I've watched basic decency erode away from our political process, especially during the last decade, and I know good people who won't consider public office because of it.

It's time to call people on this.

And yes, I know Mary Cheney is part of her father's campaign organization. If Kerry et al want to talk about her work in that capacity, fine. But that is not what they were doing -- and every reader here knows that, whether or not you are willing to admit it.

This whole argument seems to be between those who believe the ends justify the means and those who don't.

I side with those who don't.

It was a cheap shot at the opponent. Fair enough. Cheap shots are part of our political landscape.

But cheap shots that intentionally exploit someone who has done no harm as far as I know seems to me to be beyond the pale.

Here's what it all boils down to, IMO. Mary was used by the Kerry campaign. Using people in such a manner is wrong.

End of story.

Whether or not Kerry supports gay marriage or civil unions changes nothing. it would still be wrong, in my view.

Those of you who, like me, agree with Robin, should save your breath. Because those who think it's okay to use someone as long as it helps your cause cannot be persuaded otherwise.

And I might add, that this is in part the difference between the Keyes issue and this one. Keyes remark was so offensive as to not deserve a response. He wasn't using Mary. He attacked her. Kerry didn't attack Mary, he calculatingly used her. Both are dispicable.

Lunacy

"And dragging in Alan Keyes as if to say "they all do it" smacks of trying to let the K/E campaign off the hook."

No, dear heart. The only hook for the K/E campaign is the one created by the Republican noise machine in order to distract from the fact that large numbers their supporters (large enough to make a difference in this election) believe that homosexual orientation is a matter of choice.

Failing to criticize--indeed even mention before you were forced to--Alan Keyes, smacks of trying to divert attention from the real issue: mentioning the sexual orientation of a politician's child who herself has exploited her orientation for personal gain.

Failing to concede that Alan Keyes has committed at least as egregious an insult to the Cheneys merely serves to show how narrow your sense of propriety is.

Seeing how Keyes isn't the topic of this thread, I don't to see how failing to mentioning Keyes (who by the way isn't running for the f*cking presidency but is a lousy fall guy in a small state election) has any bearing on whether or not Kerry is a classless Masshole.

I mean, really...is Robin supposed to list all flawed republicans before she denounces a clueless democrat?

I guess anytime we hear how Bush lied you guys are gonna list all Clinton's lies before you make your argument. As if.

CBK

There is neither time nor space here to list all those who are exploitative and / or stupid, even if we restrict ourselves to just this campaign.

I've made it clear I don't like Keyes. I have no problem denouncing his statement either.

But -- and it is a huge BUT -- I don't expect Keyes to meet the standards of civility and decency nor am I in his party to hold him accountable for the way he speaks for Republicans.

I am in the Democratic party still -- although I neither agree with nor like many trends I've seen in the last decade or so -- and therefore in some sense what Kerry and Edwards did reflects on me -- unless I take public exception to it.

As I am doing here.

Lunacy (did you pick that name yourself?):

"Mary was used by the Kerry campaign."

Mary was and is used by the Bush/Cheney campaign. By her own consent. Her sexual orientation is known, with her consent. She has exploited it for personal gain. Kerry did speculate (likely correctly) on her state of mind regarding whether sexual orientation is inborn or volitional.

"Keyes remark was so offensive as to not deserve a response. He wasn't using Mary. He attacked her. Kerry didn't attack Mary, he calculatingly used her. Both are dispicable."

How very sad for you that you cannot distinguish between self-serving intolerant homophobes like Keyes and self-serving tolerant politicians like Kerry. This equivalency is one of the things that is wrong with the Republican Party. It is no different than the pseudo liberals that cannot tell the difference between Islamofascism and Israel. You both belong together.

Keyes is a peripheral figure who specializes in being outrageous.

Kerry is the Democratic candidate for President.

The difference matters.

"is Robin supposed to list all flawed republicans before she denounces a clueless democrat?"

sigh

No, silly. Don't bother trying to distract me with manufactured arguments. Nobody said anything about "all flawed republicans."

Focus.

Robin denounced K/E for exploiting Mary Cheney's sexual orientation for self-serving political purposes. I can think of a very large number of flawed Politicians of every flavor, and only one unambigously stands out as having exploited Mary Cheney's sexual orientation for self-serving political purposes--Alan Keyes. I have enough regard for Robin's intellect to believe that she was aware of Keyes' ugly statement, and to be puzzled by her omission of this fact relevent to the topic of the thread.

JollyBuddah -

I think that's funny. :) Perhaps if I were an atheist, I would take exception to a statement that we're all gods children, but I'm a little more relaxed about religion than that.

I don't see what's so hypocritical about an "I don't know" answer to a question about wether or not being gay is a choice. As I am not gay, and the people I know who are gay are not in agreement on it either, I would have answered 'I don't know' as well. The idea that not answering was somehow hypocrtical is silly, and I don't think it had anything to do with the republican party's reluctance to embrace homosexuals wholeheartedly. For those who believe homosexuality is a moral failing, the idea that you're born that way is irrelevant - if god says homosexual behavior is wrong, then that's all that counts. Perhaps it was an attempt by Bush not to spout off about something he apparently knows very little about.

If it is by her own consent she isn't being used. Even if Kerry was 100% correct about her opinion on the matter, he didn't have her consent. Did he?

Is that really so hard to figure out?

See, it's like this. If I voluntarily pose for Hustler, I'm not being exploited. If, on the other hand, my creepy neighbor posts my pictures in the Gallery Girl Next Door section, without my consent, I'm being exploited.

See the difference? Choice vs. no choice.

As to tolerance, that's not the issue either, is it? It's rather ironic that you think my not agreeing with you means I must be a republican.

Wrong. Never voted republican in my life. But your tolerance and lack of generalizing was very heartwarming. Thanks for treating me as an individual instead of a member of some monolithic group like "pseuso liberals". As for Kerry, I have no evidence that he's tolerant. Only evidence that he panders.

Lunacy

trying to divert attention from the real issue: mentioning the sexual orientation of a politician's child who herself has exploited her orientation for personal gain

This statement may be key. It puzzles me, as I'm not sure what Mary Cheney has personally "gained" other the the opportunity to be slimed by practically everyone in sight (and if someone says "Well, she gets a <salary for campaigning!" I am going to be tempted to slap that person silly). But the clear meaning is that she is, to coin a phrase, fair game; that her activism constitutes "exploiting her orientation".

Someone who thinks this way probably is not likely to feel outraged at offenses to Mary Cheney, and trying to make him feel that way is probably pointless.

Sigh

Had Robin's post been about ALL exploitation and attacks on Mary Cheney, and failed to mention Keyes, you may have a point, Joel.

But that wasn't the topic of the post. The topic IS (drum roll please) Kerry/Edwards and the stupid dearmary.com ad campaign.

The injection of Keyes into this discussion is the side track and irrelevant.

Robin clearly states that her "respect for Kerry and the party to which [she has] belonged for many years (3 decades) has plummeted."

So why the SamHell should she be talking about that freak Keyes? He's not Kerry, he's not in her party, and he's not running the dearmary ads.

The distraction is yours, Joel. Silly, silly Joel.

CBK

SIGH Okay, let's talk about why I didn't talk about Keyes. In detail. So we don't have to do it again, okay??

It's not because he and I don't share some attitudes on political matters. We both, for instance, think that social support systems devised in the 60s and 70s have had some unhealthy effects on minority groups.

But I am interested in solutions and he is interested in making intellectual points as an (embattled) Opposition figure to those who have set up what look an awful lot like Civil Rights shakedown gigs.

In other words, I just don't have a huge amount of regard for Keyes and don't find him sufficiently important to get worked up about. Or perhaps more accurately (because I do think he plays a useful role sometimes in challenging group-think) I don't usually pay sufficient attention to him to worry about rebutting him when I do disagree.

That's because I've worked, over the course of my career, for and in support of several truly impressive minority leaders.

As a technologist, manager and executive I've helped several minority-owned small businesses succeed and flourish. I'm proud of the fact that my technical skills and my MBA from a top-10 B-school (earned a decade after my seminary studies) have contributed to creating wealth and jobs within minority communities and I was pleased to work for those entrepreneurs.

When I came to West Point, I worked for the first 2 years for an African-American full Colonel, a PhD who heads one of the largest academic departments at the Academy. Himself a graduate of the Point, he is highly respected by his subordinates and his superiors alike and he has articulated one of the most sophisticated and useful models I've ever seen for fostering tolerance and acceptance across racial, religious and ethnic divides. His model also addresses the assimilation dilemna that many blacks feel.

His diversity work has earned him national recognition from African-American groups.

I respect him greatly and have learned a lot from him, despite having worked with and having led racially, ethnically, religiously -- and yes, sexually - diverse work groups for many years. (Someday I may, or may not, tell the story of an employee who transgendered in the middle of a time-crunched military software development contract. My customer didn't blink much, the women in the company were okay with his/her use of the bathrooms, but the men had a really hard time with it for a while.)

This term, 4 of the senior year cadet groups I advise / teach are analyzing West Point's outreach to minority populations who might apply for admission. Our goal is to have a West Point cadet population, and an officer corps, which reflects roughly the same proportions of racial and other identities as our enlisted and NCO ranks. (There are important operational and developmental reasons why the Army has this goal - it is far more than just a PC response to diversity. If I recall correctly, USMA filed a comment in the Michigan supreme court case because of those reasons. It was at least under discussion .....)

We sometimes attract fewer qualified African American males, and several other demographic groups, than we'd like, in part because in order to do we would need to get rather high proportions of the qualified pool. We're in competition with schools like Harvard, Stanford etc. for them and those schools offer full scholarships with no service obligation afterwards.

Nonetheless, we do attract and keep many top minority cadets and a number of those are in my classes this year. My students this term include male and female African Americans, Asians, Pacific Rim members and Hispanics. I regularly have foreign cadets in my classes as well -- last term it was a Mongolian man, the term before that a woman from Khazakhstan and before that cadets from Singapore, Costa Rica and Slovenia. Also Bulgaria and I think I'm forgetting one or two others.

Several of the minority cadets are working on the admissions system recommendations, along with caucasian students. In addition to teaching the technical analysis techniques they must use, and grading their work, I contribute to their professional growth by posing questions and helping them to think through the tough issues their project must address. In a small way this too is a contribution I make to enhancing minority communities in the United States.

Bottom line: Keyes doesn't impress me much because I and people I admire have been addressing economic growth and diversity issues on the ground, successfully, while he's been writing columns designed to provoke outrage (and perhaps conversation). Or more accurately, I don't pay all the much attention to him most of the time, although I do think he sometimes provides a useful counterbalance as a minority postion holder among minority communities.

I don't look to him for guidance on social issues re: sexuality.

I figure it's up to the Republicans to deal with his attempted fratricide of Mary Cheney &/or his appeal to social conservatives. I just don't take him seriously enough to respond to him most of the time.

Hope that helps ....

{NOTE: this comment touches on some important issues and addresses my employer and work community. I've edited it slightly to ensure the language accurately conveys what I mean to say.]

Joel: "Failing to criticize--indeed even mention before you were forced to--Alan Keyes, smacks of trying to divert attention from the real issue ..."

I suggest that the reason why so many people don't "get it" is that they are so used to confronting any moral criticism of a Democrat by immediately changing the subject to something a Republican did (or vice versa).

Anyway, Joel, your failure to criticize --- INDEED, EVEN TO MENTION! --- the fact that Democratic Pennsylvania Senator Vince Fumo disrupted that serene body recently by screaming "FAGGOT! FAGGOT! FAGGOT!" (etc, etc, etc!) at the Republican leadership, shows that you are just gosh-darned insensitive. You probably ought to be attending some sort of workshop.

Poor Glen. Calm down, buddy.

Since Robin holds us to the standard of staying on topic, how was Fumo exploiting Mary Cheney or the child of any politician for political advantage?

I didn't think so. Let's at least stay on topic when we get hysterical, shall we?

To answer your OT rebuke: silly boy, of course I condemn Vince Fumo if he said/did those things. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.l

Robin: you have questions from the debate confused. Kerry's remark came on the question about gay marriage, not on the later question about strong women. It wasn't as out-of-place as you suggest. The rest of what you write, I'm going to have to digest more slowly (except see below).

USMC: For years, until the Equal Rights Amendment was finally dead, I heard conservatives say it would mandate unisex bathrooms. Sounded kooky to me, but now the shoe is on the other foot. Well, the FMA as written probably prohibits states from setting up civil unions (including survivorship benefits, joint tax filing, and other benefits that can not possibly be accomplished through a power of attorney or other laborious substitutes), and also from conferring on state gay employees any sort of partner benefits, etc. It's that "incidents thereto" catch-all clause that shows it isn't about protecting Oklahoma from recognizing Hawaii's same-sex marriages. Eugene Volokh has posts on his blog (here's one, I find his search feature clumsy) with suggestions for how to re-word the amendment to make it obvious that it doesn't prohibit states fromm enacting civil unions by their own legislation. And you know why his suggestions aren't adopted? Because many of the champions of the FMA want to see gays in courthouses in one role only: criminal defendant [page 10 of link]. It really is that simple.

Andrew, yes I did. I did note that my position isn't changed much by that. I still think Kerry was deliberately and outrageously using Mary Cheney for his own political gain, and it angers me.

Your point about the FMA is worth addressing, but it does not justify Kerry's specific use of Mary Cheney in his reply.

Robin,

Congratulations on an impressive CV. As a Professor of Biochemistry and of Pediatrics at a midwestern medical school, I know your achievements mean as much to you as mine mean to me.

Yes, your autobiographical sketch above does help, though perhaps not for the reason you intended. Like your earlier autobiographical commentary, it underscores the personal (not political) nature of your grievance against K/E on this account. I understand. I find myself losing perspective sometimes too, when I try to personalize events that, in the end, are really not about me. I'm continuing to work on it.

Best of luck.

You: ...exploiting Mary Cheney's sexual orientation and treating her with condescension and disrespect.

Me: I cannot discern a shred of disrespect in either Kerry's or Edwards comments.

You: you apparently have no conception (or pretend you don't) of how insulting it is to have Kerry put words in Mary Cheney's mouth about a highly personal topic.

OK, so Kerry's comments were insulting, condescending, disrespectful? Any more pejoratives you care to throw in there for good measure?

Politicans will be politicians, Robin, so I really don't see how your opinion adds anything to the discourse, unless you can explicity say why this is a problem for Kerry.

Please distill it into one sentence for the busy amongst us.

And don't forget to make it crystal clear why this is a unique problem for Kerry (if you think it is) and not Bush.

Well, Joel, I said in this WOC entry that for me the actions of the K/E campaign re: Mary Cheney weren't a political issue, but rather one of common decency.

I haven't swerved from that, despite the efforts of some commentators to attribute various political motives to me.

Where you and I disagree is in your assertion that I am inappropriately personalizing things that aren't really about me.

I respectfully disagree that the cynical and exploitative use (as I see it) of a woman's sexuality by the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of my own party isn't "about me". Unless I speak out to disassociate myself from them, they are indeed speaking for me in some sense.

And as a woman who has spent much of her career dealing with the responses of business and society to women entering new, high profile roles, it is also about me in a more fundamental way.

Nuff said.

JoollyBhudda sez:

"Celeste, your questions are not comparable. You are ignoring the hypocrisy of the Bush adminstration's position. "

The hypocrisy of the Bush administration is irrelevant. This is between John Kerry and Mary Cheney. That John Kerry is so willing to attack a "noncomabatant" for his own advantage is what's at issue here.

(But then, he had no problem shooting noncombatants in Vietnam, so why should anyone be surprised?)

Robin Burk sez:

"Never voted republican in my life."
I hope after this you're considering changing that pattern.

Ralph, I think you are referring to Lunacy's comment above.

Fear not, Ralph. I'll be voting for Bush. As are all the other lunatics in my asylum. I've been coaching them, you see ;-)

Lunacy

Sorry, little cbk. I was busy reading important stuff and overlooked your post.

"So why the SamHell should she be talking about that freak Keyes? He's not Kerry, he's not in her party, and he's not running the dearmary ads."

Sorry to overwork your intellect on this. Yes, Keyes is not Kerry. Yes, Keyes is a Republican. Yes, Keyes is not running the dearmary ads. I'm sure you can come up with some other things he's not, equally beside the point.

The point, my psittacine friend, is that Robin expresses outrage at Kerry and Edwards because, in her mind, they are exploiting Mary Cheney inappropriately for political advantage without consulting her. Now follow me carefully here . . . Keyes is exploiting Mary Cheney inappropriately for political advantage, too. So unlike your irrelevant observations, this comparison is actually on topic. My puzzlement arose because of this curious lacuna in her argument. Sorry you find this so difficult.

"Silly, silly Joel."

You make a funny little parrot. Now do see if you can imitate that in your next post.

Okay, Joel - try to condescend to me if you like.

But your tone with cbk is outside the bounds of what Winds of Change is all about. Treat the other commenters here with respect or go elsewhere.

Sorry, I was just returning his/her tone in kind.

I'll certainly leave this thread alone now, out of respect to you and Joe. I can see you're upset.

I'm a frequent visitor (but infrequent poster) to WOC. I've referred others here, too. However, I've seen for myself what is in and out of bounds here. I've learned more snarkiness here than on any other site I visit (granted, I don't visit Instapundit or LGF).

Sharp disagreements are welcomed - including disagreements with snark to them. But attacks that are more ad hominem than ad argumentum do not advance the dialogue here.

It's a fuzzy line but your last post crossed it IMO. I'm happy to tolerate a lot of personal attack on me, since I'm one of the blog team and also because I have a pretty thick skin. But I'm not so happy to have similar language aimed at others here.

No. Keyes is NOT on topic. Just because you wish it were on topic does not make it so.

In this discussion of apples (Robin's disenchantment with her Democratic party in general and Kerry in particular and for a particular reason), your oranges (bigoted Republicans who aren't important except to themselves) is totally irrelevant and a distraction.

Maybe while you're looking for better things to read than my comments, you could re-read her initial post. And this time try to divert a little of your vast intellect to reading comprehension. I'm sure it's difficult for one with such a HUGE head to concentrate those great powers. FOCUS.

If I were to follow you carefully, you'd have me convinced that Robin shouldn't express outrage at a worm ridden apple because, lo, there are moldy oranges that she failed to castigate.

Or, to put it another way, perhaps too simple for your complex brain to understand (but hope springs eternal in fools like me) . While Robin's topic is north atlantic dusky shark you insist on bringing up red herrings.

CBK

This is a problem for Kerry because in the upper mid west where the election will probably be decided, if it isn't first in Pennsylvania, voters, a lot of whom are parents, think it is not very nice to attack someone through their children. That's what Kerry did. It will cost him votes. That's a problem for him.

Are you serious? Get a grip,

Mary Cheney is a professional lesbian.

"She ... helped Republicans recruit homosexual voters during the 2002 midterm elections."

She has made her sexual identity public and "an issue" insofar as gay politics are an issue in American politics. She has no right to privacy so far as her basic lesbian identity is concerned.

a professional lesbian.

I sure hope you guys are helping to draft the talking points for the Sunday morning shows.

It seems clear to me from these last two threads, and from the reactions on various blogs, that a lot of Kerry supporters think that this a tremendous score for Kerry - that he totally skewered Bush and Cheney and proved once again that all Republicans (but, of course, no Democrats) hate gays. And they just can't keep from crowing with glee over it.

Which is not much help to Kerry, considering today's WaPo poll showing that 64% of likely voters thought the remark was inappropriate, including 40% of Kerry supporters and 50% of "swing voters".

But the Glorious October Offensive must roll nonetheless, and the next objective seems to be Alan Keyes' daughter Maya. She is not an avowed lesbian, but Daily Kos ran several threads attempting to "out" her, and now columnist Jennifer Vanasco is jumping on board:

Mary and Maya just happen to have caught the brunt of the publicity, since the anti-gay Republicans they work for are in the family ...

If you work against your own people, you may still be homosexual, but gay? No. We don’t want you.

There's a nice bit of tolerance for you. We're all God's children, except Mary and Maya.

Glen Wishard, you are right. I heard people calling in to say they were changing their vote to Bush, on talk radio and tv both, because of this issue.
I really marvel at the strength of confirmational bias. Jollybuddha, V.T., and others truly believe K/E remarks were both legitimate and brilliant.
I experienced confirmational bias myself in the case of Sir Richard Dawkins, but I was able to overcome it analytically, and admit that what he wrote in the Guardian was dreadfully wrong. I wonder if even disasterous poll results will be enough to convince K/E supporters that maybe counting coup on a candidate's homosexual children is basically wrong.
Here is the truthsay: I honestly believe that if Cheney and GWB had brought up a hypothetical gay offspring of Kerry or Edwards I would be just as disgusted.

Whew! Some comments thread. Having just started from the beginning, here's a couple of points that may have gotten lost by now.

Robin, one of your original themes was that Edwards' and Kerrys remarks were part of an organized campaign activity. JC's post had you back away from that somewhat. That's good; to me part of the problem with the political landscape is the difficulty in distinguishing between a Campaign and individuals/groups promoting their own ideas for their own reasons. Like us, here. McCain/Feingold has made matters worse by drawing an arbitrary line through a blurry territory, and declaring it legally real.

So we are left with what Edwards, and Kerry, and Edwards' wife, said about Mary Cheney, standing or falling on their own merits.

I find their comments quite uncivil for exactly the reasons you (and others here) have described. In this high-stakes endgame, I find it overwhelmingly likely that they were calculated, rather than the sort of foot-in-mouth things that we all say from time to time...and then wish we hadn't. To that extent, their comments speak strongly to Character.

Now, this has been a lively and active thread, precisely because many Kerry supporters don't see it this way, at all. Robin's description of her outrage included both normative reasoning (why the conduct should be considered out of bounds) and historical context (that campaigns have tacitly agreed not to behave this way, up till now).

Well, okay. One problem is that there's no way to tell whose ox is going to be gored next time, or the time after that. More substantively, per Robin, making family "fair game" is an excellent recipe for keeping qualified people out of public service. And in the case at hand, those sexually-repressed, vindictive Bible-Belters don't seem to be responding as some in the Kerry campaign must have thought they would, so there's no tactical gain in any case.

A final note. Reading through the comments all at once, one can track the growing frustration of certain folks invested in their postion, as they fail to persuade their correspondents (I don't see one mind changed here). Some people have tried hard to recast their arguments in more effective fashions. Others have moved to sarcasm, and to displays of condescension towards their adversaries. There may be a small irony there, given the original issue of whether the people speaking about Mary Cheney have been doing so with sufficient respect.

Bob Woodward, on MSNBC with Chris Matthew this morning, said the following (as close to verbatim as I can remember -- I was working out while listening but stopped to jot down a note):

When talking about someone's kids, I think the rule should be: Do not touch. Do not mention.

Woodward is scarcely an apologist for the Republicans, but he shares (I think) my concern and the concern of others about stepping over a line in a way that has corrosive impact on our public life and our polity.

And to those who feel my outrage over the actions of the K/E campaign this past week is one-sided, I will take some time to research other such actions (like Keyes' comments) and will post another WOC article in response. Because what has me really angry and really worried is not the partisan impact of last week so much as the way in which our whole political process is degrading.

Kerry and Edwards got the blast first because their actions hit upon a topic I feel very very deeply about -- as our readers can probably tell.

AJL

“the FMA as written probably prohibits states from setting up civil unions (including survivorship benefits, joint tax filing, and other benefits that can not possibly be accomplished through a power of attorney or other laborious substitutes), “_ (emphasis mine)

I think I’ve stated my position on FMA here and here fairly clearly and we have both shown examples as to why we both believe the FMA is not the right way to go about resolving the issues of alternative life styles. Again I state my case that the introduction of the FMA was a clear warning shot aimed at those who would rather destroy the religious sanctity of marriage and hijack it for their own purposes instead of getting off their duffs and addressing the issue on a state level with alternative solutions.

One thing that disturbs me terribly is the complete lack of empathy. How would K/E feel if the situation was reversed, and their children were being exploited?
Any question directed at the legitimacy of this tactic is greeted by a barrage of "well, GWB and Cheney did/said this, so what K/E did is fine".

The issue that Republicans, independents, and Bush leaning Democrats have with the Kerry-Edwards attacks using Mary Cheney is not about homosexuality.

It is about the revealed character of the Kerry-Edwards campaign and specifically of John Kerry.

The choice of attacking Mary Cheney sent more than one message. The intent of the Democrats in going this route was to turn off the Republican Evangelical Christians turn out for the Bush campaign.

This was based on Democrats cardboard cut out image of religious conservatives rather than reality. In their rush to push the 'Republican homosexual intolerance' button to rise their voter turn out and lower Republican turn out; they punched a much bigger button.

The Kerry Campaign thought that that Republican leaning Evangelical Christians hated homosexuals than they loved their children. So they went after Dick Cheney's child.

It doesn't matter that the 'child' is an adult.

It doesn't matter that Democrats don't see that as an issue since Mary Cheney was a "public figure" that "symbolized Republican hypocrisy.

It matters that for non-Democrats a fundamental line was crossed for the sake of political power; in doing so the Kerry Campaign communicated their utter, amoral, ruthlessness in the pursuit of power.

No candidate that is so ruthless in trying to achieve power can be trusted to wield the awesome power of the American executive branch.

In mentioning Mary Cheney as he did, Kerry created for himself in the debates a 'Kitty Dukakis moment' that has culturally tarnished and disqualified him for the Presidency for the majority of Americans.

A small note on dearmary.com. It's whois information is anonymized. You can look it up for yourself. The registrant of record is an anonymizing service. That's what they do for a living, preserving the anonymity of actual domain owners. Now the fellow who is supposedly running this also has a domain called dontamend.com and the dearmary.com contact email is a dontamend.com address. Dontamend.com does not use any anonymizing intermediaries for that domain. It's an open question why he ponied up for dearmary.com but not dontamend.com .

So who's actually behind dearmary.com? I can't tell, and neither can you. It bothers me. It should bother you.

TM, I did notice the anonomizer on the dearmary.com site and it did bother me - especially since one purpose of the site is to funnel an email campaign to Mary Cheney via the front page.

Doesn't bother me. Anonymous political commentary is a right in this country and has been since it was founded. (The nature of the commentary is something else again, but it would bother me to the same degree if a name were signed to it.)

I suppose I could be accused of arguing my own advantage here, since my posts are semi-pseudonymous although it wouldn't be hard at all to find out who I am. But this is a pretty fundamental first amendment principle here.

I am very very curious about what Mary Cheney herself feels about whether she was born gay or somehow developed this as a "preference" over the course of her life.

If she claims she was born one, it undermines the positions of many Republican anti-gay groups that continually use the term "lifestye choice" when referring to homosexuality.

However, if she says she chose to be gay at some point in her life, the question arises of course as to why this happened. Was it her upbringing?

The failure of journalists to ask her to elaborate on this is unexcusable in the current context. Since many here accuse John Kerry of "speaking for her", you'd think you'd like to know the answer to this also.

But since any answer to this question is likely to reflect badly on Republicans in one sense or another, I seriously doubt it.

jaed:

Anonymous political commentary is a right in this country and has been since it was founded.

That is an extremely interesting statement. You don't happen to have any proof of it do you? Pointing to examples of anonymous political commentary doesn't do it. I can point to examples of all kinds of things throughout U. S. history for which no rights exist.

I can tell you with some confidence, however, that there is no generalized right to anonymity in this country. On that I can produce SCOTUS cases if pressed.

Whatever the case with regard to anonymous political commentary, pressure campaigns that encourage possibly anonymous email in volume strike me as cowardly and not all that different from a Denial of Service attack, given that the destination email address is Mary Cheney's campaign account.

V.T. grrrr.....Kerry says she was born one!
There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. Kerry lied. No one can be assumed to have been born a homosexual. This attitude towards science is endemic in the K/E campaign. Say anything. Feh!

V.T.

”The failure of journalists to ask her to elaborate on this is unexcusable [sic] in the current context. Since many here accuse John Kerry of "speaking for her", you'd think you'd like to know the answer to this also.”

Whether I want to know the answer to that question or not, it is not my nor any journalists’ business to impose upon Mary to give it.

Perhaps we should ask Kerry what scientific proof he has that makes it a known fact genetics is the cause of alternative lifestyles. I wonder if it’s just a gut feeling he has.

You can keep dreaming that Mary Cheney is going to bail Kerry out of this and the realization has finally set in that she will not. Now you and every other journalist want to force her to answer up to save your hides and rectify a Kerry blunder. How absurd can you be. Mary would do well to plant a foot in all their posteriors. I for one wouldn‘t blame her one bit. Heck I might even egg her on in the hopes that she would be able to beat some sense into these people who use their heads to hold their ears apart.

Mary Cheney is not going to bail Kerry out of the hole that has been dug. She is not responsible for what has transpired. Kerry and Kerry alone holds the responsibility for that. Now if Kerry can prove Mary made such a claim publicly about herself then and only then will I let Kerry off the hook. Otherwise Kerry needs to be a man about it and step up to the plate and publicly apologize to Mary for his inconsiderate behavior. And yes I said be a man not a wimp.

Jinderella;

I'm not trying to initiate a debate on the genetic basis for homosexuality. No, there is no conclusive "proof" that it is or isn't. But then again there is no evidence that sexual preference of any sort is strictly genetically encoded, or for that matter any complex human behavioral trait, so your point is kind of moot.

I just want to know what Mary Cheney thinks. USMC makes a good point, however, that she need not (and will not, for the reasons he alludes to) do so, and I respecdt that, but I'd be interested never the less.

But after catching Ken Mehlman on MTP this morning, I don't think this issue has any legs in the last two weeks of an election with so many other overarching matters of importance to discuss. Russert wanted to talk about real issues, not manufactured ones, and was pretty successfull at making the Bush campaign seem hypocritical to be crowing about this right now.

V.T.
"or for that matter any complex human behavioral trait"
Oh, that is just not true! There are huge bodies of fine work in evolutionary biology and psycho-physiology! Just because you don't know of its existence doesn't mean it isn't there.
And I insist that Kerry lied when he stated Mary Cheney was born "that way". There is no evidence.

The failure of journalists to ask her to elaborate on this is unexcusable in the current context. Since many here accuse John Kerry of "speaking for her", you'd think you'd like to know the answer to this also.

Why? That is her private opinion. IF she wants to talk about it, I'll certainly listen with respect. But if not, it is her private opinion - and can / should stay that way unless she chooses to make that public.

No attempts on the part of you, VT, or others to pressure her changes that fact. Nor does it change the fact that you are reducing her to her sexuality in order to use her for political gain.

Jinderella;

I'd be interested in some citations. Remember you said "conclusive". You can email them to me if you prefer.

Robin;

The claim has been made here that Kerry "spoke for" Mary Cheney, and this seems to be the source of some of the projected anger directed at him over this incident. This is a falsifiable claim.

Indeed Kerry did presume to speak for Mary Cheney. And I, for one -- and other feminists I know -- find that insulting, condescending and manipulative.

You won't change my mind on that, especially because I've watched very closely how Kerry talks about his relationship with his current wife -- and watched their body language -- and read a bit about his first marriage.

When I choose whom to vote for, issues matter a lot. So too, however, does character -- and I don't like what I see of John Kerry's character. The fact that he used Mary Cheney as he did, in the formal setting of the last debate, and then tried to claim he was speaking with respect, confirmed an opinion of his character that has been building for me since before he won the Democratic nomination.

And yes, as a baby boomer, I was around for his VVAW days and did not like his actions and attitude then. But I've carefully watched him to see if he has changed and grown on the character side since and I am not impressed,

I am not happy with what I see of the character in the man my party is running to be President. As a voter, I will consider that along with other factors when I decide how to pull the lever in my voting booth two weeks from now.

V.T.-- You can read my post on Sexual Imprinting at GeneExpression. It includes references for current work on the three kinds of love (complex behavoir) and co-located cortical mapping for sex and opiate abuse. You can use the gnxp search engine to look for any other kind of complex human behavoir that strikes your interest. And there is some research being done on homosexuality-- I read some recent posts there on it. :)

Jinderella;

Your fanciful post on the subject of sexual attraction and the physiological changes in brains of amorous humans does not address the question of whether sexuality (the subject of your post) or other complex human behavioral traits are strictly genetically determined.

I was looking for primary citations of studies that are more genetic, rather than behavioral, in nature.

I am not arguing against the idea that sexual preferences or many behaviors have a genetic component. Rather, there are plenty of experiments that do suggest such a link, and those on homosexuality strongly suggest a genetic role.

And therefore it is not entirely innacurate to say that some people could be "born gay".

But this was your statement:

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined.

And in response you are offering behavioral evidence as proof against my assertion that no complex human behaviors have been shown conclusively (your term) to be genetically determined in humans.

However, I cannot see how these types of experiments can address genetic determinism. Conclusively.

Might I suggest you direct your research efforts on the subject to primary literature databases such as OMIM or Pubmed rather than a blog.

(For Pubmed, try entering the search terms Genetic AND basis AND homosexuality, exactly like that.)

OK, Robin, so it's a "character flaw" that John Kerry is a politician. I'll grant that.

What an amazing revelation on your part.

I invite you to take a look at the other side to see what they're offering...

(Or maybe you'd prefer to use military polls as a proxy for your own opinion, since you stated here you think military people "prize character" or something like that?)

Not all politicians exploit the sexuality of 3rd parties. I'm pretty sure Joe Lieberman, for instance, would not stoop to the actions of the K/E campaign.

And I haven't a clue why you would bring military polls into this discussion.

Vesicle Trafficer sez:

"The failure of journalists to ask her to elaborate on this is unexcusable in the current context. Since many here accuse John Kerry of "speaking for her", you'd think you'd like to know the answer to this also. "

Actually, I don't want to know. She is not running for office and does not hold a policy-making position in Bush/Cheney campaign, so her opinion has no practical impact. She is not a professor of psychology, so her opinion is no more reliable, interesting or informative than that of anyone else chosen at random from among the however-many-million lesbians there are in the USA.

It's because her opinion on this matter is so irrelevant to whether Bush or Kerry would make a better President that Kerry's dragging her into the debate looks so bad.

Robin, Joe Lieberman lost. And two reasons he lost were (1) he was too much the gentleman to remind viewers of the VP debate that Dick Cheney's "private enterprise" fortune made at Halliburton was heavily dependent on government contracts and (2) he couldn't wait to show generosity in counting possibly-fraudulent Florida ballots, overruling the advice of Gore's legal team, without noticing, maybe without even caring, that the Bush campaign failed to reciprocate. Nice guys finish last?!

I think, indeed hope, you could find a better example. Joe Lieberman is up there with Mike Dukakis in my book, for "whose campaign not to emulate".

Andrew, it would appear that you measure the appropriateness of an action purely by whether or not it gets your guy elected.

I take a broader and longer-range view than that. I don't want to elect people who cross certain ethical and other lines, no matter which party they represent, because the effect on our country, while subtle at first, is corrosive and deeply damaging.

Also, as a former defense contractor, I rather resent the suggestion that Halliburton's defense work (which is only a part of that company's revenues) is an inherent sign of something bad or wrong.

jinnderella: "I insist that Kerry lied when he stated Mary Cheney was born "that way". There is no evidence."

"Lied" is a bit strong - like many others, Kerry probably just doesn't know any better.

But I strongly agree with you on the "born gay" thing. The extent to which this notion has been seized on for political purposes is a disgrace. It shows a lack of respect for 1) sexuality, 2) science, 3) a long and distinguished philosophical tradition, and 4) implications that go far beyond political and gay rights issues.

Anyway, I intend to blog it to death, bit by bit.

V.T. My posts are supposed to be fanciful-- why shouldn't science be beautiful and fun? But they are based on real research-- in that article I cite Dr. Helen Fisher--Why We Love: Nature and Chemistry, Matt Ridley--Nature Via Nuture, Phelps and Young, "Social Attachment"- Journal of Comparative Neurology, Jan 2004 and the work of Andreas Bartel & Semir Zeki at University College in London. Notice the first two entries are books I've read.
You can read Pubmed and OMIM if you like-- or you can read Gene Expression where someone else has done the research for you and bundled it. At Gene Expression we are sort of genetic pundits. You are welcome to argue our opinions, but our opinions are backed with science. :)
None of Kerry's seem to be.

Glen Wishard: May I admire you? :)
And I'll stick with lied. Surely his speech writers knew that could not be a valid statement at least. He said it for political gain, knowing it was at least unproven and therefore untrue. Lies are deliberate.

Jinderella,

"Stating a belief that is not supported by empirical research reports" or even "stating a belief that is rebutted by empirical research reports" isn't the same thing as "lying." Strand you, AJL, me, and VT in a lifeboat for a week, and we would discover all sorts of incompatible beliefs--many contrary to published reports--but without any of us lying.

Kerry's conduct in the debate was objectionable on other grounds, per the discussion in this thread.

Amac, what is it if not lying? Fibbing? Exaggerating? "Intellectual dishonesty"? Does Kerry actually believe people are born homosexual? How primitive and uninformed. Perhaps he should do some some research before advocating legislation one way or the other. See, if someone can be born gay, that is like being born black. The gay marriage question is moot. Of course gays can be married. But Kerry doesn't advocate gay marriage. He says marriage is between a man and a woman. Which is his core belief? See? Say anything.

And V.T., How is the complex behavoir "human heterosexuality" not an example of of genetic determinism? "Behavoir" is just biochemical processes and receptors, all of which are genetically determined and manufactured. Are you looking for a single allele to code for homosexuality? Naive.

Jinderella, you are gonna be pretty busy with the name-calling if "stating a belief that is rebutted by empirical research reports" is sufficient to qualify somebody as a "liar." Why, in my very own family, let me tell you about Cousin...

...never mind.

A "lie" is:

--A false statement deliberately presented as being true, or

--Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. [emphasis mine]

While some in my extended family believe some pretty wild things, and even some contradictory things, what saves them from your epithet is that they don't tell me about their [false] beliefs in order to deliberately deceive me.

I know that a lot of sincere people believe what Kerry said he thinks, and I know beliefs on the subject of innate-gayness shift around a lot. Much as I dislike what I see of Kerry's character, I can't say that he said what he said in order to deceive his audience.

Robin, one of us has misremembered the Cheney/Lieberman debate. The point is not that Halliburton (or any other defense contractor) is evil, the point is Cheney went on a riff about private-sector employment, creating private-sector jobs, the futility of government job programs, and all of that. Coming from the CEO of a company that would hold its annual meeting in a phone booth without its government-derived business, that was a bit rich. But Joe L. just sat there as the stereotypes of Democrats Support Wasteful Government Handouts and Democrats Don't Understand Capitalism and Free Enterprise sucked votes away.

I do not advocate scorched-earth electoral tactics, but Lieberman seemed to me to have his priorities reversed.

Andrew:

You don't get a very sympathetic ear from me on government contracting. I've been out competing in that market, cut my costs to the bone to win awards and had to deliver against shifting baselines without contract relief. So the assumption that Halliburton is a charity fed by tax dollars doesn't cut it with me.

Lieberman knows that, I think - both his state and Kerry's get substantial defense contracting dollars. That may just be one reason he didn't take the tack you want him to have done.

Also, your description of Halliburton's market mix is exaggerated.

And, above all, you fail to address my biggest point - namely, that Lieberman was IMO right to urge no challenge to the FL vote.

That's right - I think he was right not to want to challenge it, on several grounds.

First, there is the historic irony of Dems alleging stolen elections - an artform the party perfected through much practice in the 20th century. I've been with the Dems for nearly 35 years, bless 'em, but I won't hide from the history -- and the history is one of shameful manipulation of results. Daley's delivery of Chicago to JFK on the vote of thousands of dead people is, of course, a classic, but there are other examples one could cite as well.

Second, in the 2000 FL election the Dems made a serious attempt to disenfranchise overseas military. You can guess just how much I approved of that. Yes, in my judgement my own party started the manipulation in FL. There is poetic justice in the fact that ultimately Gore lost there.

Did the Repubs suppress votes in response to the Dem move on military votes? I'm on the fence on that - but given those Dem actions against military votes, the party lost some of my sympathy well before the polls opened that Tuesday.

But let's assume the election in FL was indeed "stolen" by the Repubs. Bush had 4 years in which to screw up, as Dems thought he would. The worst that would happen is that the Dems would have 4 years to undercut him, stymie him in Congress and then beat the pants off of him in 2004 - and bury the Clinton issue in the meanwhile.

Instead, Gore chose a scorched earth policy. He never did understand a) how unpopular he personally was and b) why Clinton had won and he was losing. Out of a massive ego and a stunning disconnect with actual voters, he launched a series of challenges that was custom designed to bring the stability and the credibility of our electoral process into deep question.

And then, he proceeded to exacerbate that in the years after 2000.

I've never forgiven him and the party for the shallow, short-sighted stupidity of that move and the attitudes that lay behind it.

Strand you, AJL, me, and VT in a lifeboat for a week, and we would discover all sorts of incompatible beliefs.

AMac, assuming you are male, I think it is possible that we might all agree in the injustice of being stranded in such a skewed gender ratio.

Although given the topic of this thread I suppose I should not presume too much....

Jinderella;

V.T. My posts are supposed to be fanciful-- why shouldn't science be beautiful and fun?

Hey, honey, that's why I make a living at it.

But your post does not even come close to scientifically justifying your claim.

And V.T., How is the complex behavoir "human heterosexuality" not an example of of genetic determinism? "Behavoir" is just biochemical processes and receptors, all of which are genetically determined and manufactured. Are you looking for a single allele to code for homosexuality? Naive.

Look, I don't want to condescend or insult you, but you're way out of your league here. Especially if you want to argue that blogging is a better way to do science than actually doing the science or even reading primary literature. It shows, believe me.

Let me ask, do you have a Ph.D.? B.S.? In what area? Are you a working scientist? If so, in what specific capacity? Are you primary author on any published articles in peer-reviewed journals (NOT blogs!!)?

Jinderella;

V.T. My posts are supposed to be fanciful-- why shouldn't science be beautiful and fun?

Hey, honey, that's why I make a living at it.

But your post does not even come close to scientifically justifying your claim.

And V.T., How is the complex behavoir "human heterosexuality" not an example of of genetic determinism? "Behavoir" is just biochemical processes and receptors, all of which are genetically determined and manufactured. Are you looking for a single allele to code for homosexuality? Naive.

Look, I don't want to condescend or insult you, but you're way out of your league here. Especially if you want to argue that blogging is a better way to do science than actually doing the science or even reading primary literature. It shows, believe me.

Let me ask, do you have a Ph.D.? B.S.? In what area? Are you a working scientist? If so, in what specific capacity? Are you primary author on any published articles in peer-reviewed journals (NOT blogs!!)?

VT, on your sage advice I withdraw that 'stranding' comment. Dunno about your appeal-to-authority-flavored point to jinnderella, though (3:20am). FWIW I am also a published biologist, but I don't think that confers any great wisdom on my own tentative views on nature-vs.-nurture as it applies to homosexuality.

Well, look at the brains on V.T.!!

VT, that's up there as one of the worst comments I've seen here at WoC. I think it's spiffy that you're a hard scientist with peer-reviewed papers and everything - or at least play one on the Internet.

But the comments here are meant as a discussion among peers - please don't forget that word - and so if you have something concrete to say to jinderella about her lack of grounding, why not so so in a way designed to enlighten her (and the rest of us) as opposed to shame her into dropping the thread?

I'm not particularly interested in conversation-stopping appeals to authority unless you happen to have Linus Pauling (or Marshall McLuhan) standing right there with you and ready to participate in the discussion himself.

A.L.

"Shame me into leaving?"
jamais de ma vie!
V.T., if you are as accomplished as you imply, then you know well there are many well documented examples of genetic determinism. Again I fail to get your point on differentiating between behavior and the physiological processes that motivate it.
Why on earth would you require credentials from me? Genetics is my interest, not my domain. I based my piece on current research-- you can disagree with my conclusions, but asking for creds is out of line, IMHO. You can argue Matt Ridley's creds, or Dr. Young's, but I haven't claimed any. I don't get the point of your argument.

A.L.;

why not so so in a way designed to enlighten her (and the rest of us) as opposed to shame her into dropping the thread

My first post to Jinderella was just that, a suggestion she consult the primary literature when making her arguments (I even suggested search terms to get her started). To which she replied she didn't see the need because she read blogs, and then called me naive.

I'm not trying to shame anyone, just make it clear that I think it would be futile to attempt to argue science in this kind of forum with someone with so little actual science knowledge.

Too bad if this doesn't fit into your idea of what a blog is supposed to be. Next time I'll just walk away from Jinderella's comments, as I have in the past.

V.T,
I think you missed my post where I cited references. I didn't call you naive, I said believing that a single allele determines homosexuality would be naive. I read the literature, sure. I don't understand your comment about reading blogs at all, the science blogs are good sources for primary research. Gene Expression is sort of a secondary consumer for that. I read my favorite researchers' blogs daily, like Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran.

And I still don't understand the line you're drawing between behavior and physiology/biochemistry.

I think we're talking past each other again. :(

Is there anyone besides me who found this to be a positive story about a strong family?

I was greatly impressed with Dick Cheney in the vice-presidential debate when he shut down the discussion in which his daughter had been mentioned, by essentially throwing away his 90 seconds to speak. I felt and feel that that was the act of a father, not of a power-hungry politician. (Which Dick Cheney may also be, but on this occasion he had his priorities straight.)

One of the secondary aims of the Edwards-Kerry attack, and Elizabeth Edwards' cruel attack, and the ads, seems to be to lever apart the Cheneys (using daughter against father and mother against daughter) and also harm Dick Cheney's relationship with his friend and boss, George W. Bush. If so, the attack failed entirely. The Cheneys do nothing but support each other, and they remain silent on things that are for the family alone.

Would that everyone could have such a family.

So long as the science isn't absolutely solid one way or the other, as is so far is the case, "I don't know" is the only sensible, non-hubristic answer for a non-scientist to give.

Despite his reputation for arrogance Bush seems to know his own intellectual limits (insert obligatory idiot joke here.)

Would that Kerry was also capable resisting the urge claim omniscience.

Up there a ways, Dave Schuler asks my basis for asserting that anonymous political commentary is a right based in the first amendment. (I realize the thread's gone in a different direction since then, but I didn't want to leave this hanging.)

There are a number of SC decisions on this question, but probably the most recent one that's directly related would be McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, in which an ordinance forbidding distribution of campaign literature without a name and address was held unconstitutional on 1A grounds. The opinion, which is worth a read, is explicit: "The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and, as Talley indicates, extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes."

There are other cases, of course, but in general it seems that anonymous speech has been held to be regulatable where it has something to do with commerce.

(It's also worth noting that the court's upholding the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech may have changed this holding to some degree, although the opinion appears to be taking the point of view that McCain-Feingold restricts "only" money, not speech. I haven't read all the opinions closely but it looks like Kennedy's is the only one that addresses anonymity.)

LOL, You knew I would be back for the last word! :)
I cannot resist it!
VT, before we get into the lifeboat, I think we had better establish our relative rankings-- I am trained in mathematics-- what is your domain?

Biologists speak only to Chemists
Chemists speak only to Physicists
Physicists speak only to Mathemeticians
And Mathematicians speak only to God