Sunday, October 17, 2004

Kerry, you're screwed . . .

. . . big time.

If you notice John Kerry stumbling even more than usual, it’s because after the third debate he now only has one foot to hop around on. The other one, the missing one, he jammed up his own butt.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, it’s not a revelation that one of Dick and Lynne Cheney’s daughters is gay. It’s not something that they have tried to hide nor have they publicized it. She’s one of their two daughters, period.

Yet both Edwards in the VP debate and Kerry in last one, chose to bring her sexual orientation into their answers.

Why? Were they hoping to somehow damage Bush and Cheney in the eyes of some conservative voters? Oh, horrors! A gay daughter? Well, then I’ll have to vote for the other guys! That intent was made clear after the debate, when Kerry Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill described Miss Cheney as "fair game."

Later, "Dad" spoke up:


"You saw a man who will say and do anything in order to get elected. And I am not speaking just as a father here, though I am a pretty angry father, but as a citizen."


And so did "Mom":


Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man. Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.


In response to Lynne Cheney expressing displeasure at having one of her daughters reduced to a cheap political ploy, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards’ wife and herself a mother replied:


"She's [Lynne Cheney] overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs.. . . I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences.. . . It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."


"Preferences"?

And no, dim bulb. Since you’re too dumb, too ambitious, or too brainwashed to understand, let me clarify the actual issue for you. It’s really quite simple.

It has nothing to do with Miss Cheney. There is no justification whatsoever for using someone else’s child for your self-serving purposes. Ever. Smack each other around all you want, but leave the kids out of it.

But they brought her up only as positive, the KerryKrew has been saying since. To show how the gay issue can be handled in a positive manner like the Cheney family has done, with tolerance!

I rant some other time about my intense dislike of the word "tolerance," but does anyone really believe in the middle of each debate the intent was to show either Bush or Cheney in a favorable light?

Pollsters and pundits yammer endlessly guessing who mothers will vote for in Presidential elections, using such convenient labels as "Soccer Moms" or "Security Moms."

With the Demorats trying to use another mother’s child for their own gain, I suggest that there’s one that hasn’t yet been considered when it comes to the November 2 vote. It should be.

It crosses all states, political parties, races, creeds, religions, and national origins.

It’s called PISSED.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot may not be someone's mother and he's much nicer than I was, but he shares my sentiments.

UPDATE: Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, changed his mind. Instead of Bush beating Kerry by 8 points, he's now predicting 10.

Labels: ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Jenna said...

The intent of mentioning Mary Cheney was three-fold:

1. Of course, it was intended to upset conservatives and perhaps encourage them to think less of Bush/Cheney.

2. And, of course, it gives the Democrats a chance to pander to their base, re: Elizabeth Edwards's nauseating display.

but the one no one is mentioning, and the one that seems most important to me:

3. To make it sound like Mary might secretly support them, even though she works for the Bush/Cheney campaign.

You see the same pattern of behavior when Kerry keeps bringing up John McCain and Ronald Reagan and members of the active military. He thinks the American public is too stupid to realize that he's being fundamentally dishonest about who supports whom.

9:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home