Kerry continues to show he has no core values

I did a search for your name with all of the terms you listed. Not one showed up. I did not take the time to try every single possible variation.

You've dug one up. Congratulations.

How about the vast majority of your political posts that are simply partisan nonsense, like your post about Kerry's daughter's breasts?

I don't need to prove how the base level of your political rhetoric. It is self-evident.

 

Jimmy,

I want you to think a little more on this. How, exactly, does Kerry gain by mentioning Mary Cheney? He was not outing her. She has been out as a lesbian for some time. John Edwards mentioned her in the VP debate with no static from the right.

Now, suddenly, the Republicans are angry. If Kerry is using Mary Cheney to grab votes, then how does that happen? Are you saying that merely by "discovering" that Cheney's daughter is gay, some Republicans will leave Bush/Cheney? Is it likely that they will suddenly switch to Kerry/Edwards, who have more liberal views on gays?

You say it's outside human decency to discuss sexual orientation for political purposes. This is essentially the MO of the religious right.

I may actually agree with you if you can describe to me the political gain that Kerry gets by mentioning Mary Cheney. If there is a gain (or at least a loss to the Republicans), I'm afraid you will see that the mechanism that drives that gain is really the shortfall in the Republicans stance on gays. They talk out of both sides of their mouths on the issue. On the one hand, they want to keep the support of the far right, who feel that homosexuality is an abomination. Out of the same side of their mouths they want to speak of a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Out of the other side of their mouths, the side they are forced to talk out of, in part because of Mary Cheney (and yes, John Kerry), they kind of mumble and say "yeah, yeah, gays should be allowed to live the lifestyle they want. Yeah Yeah, next question."

If Kerry gains, it implies the conservatives lose in some sense. How do they lose, and what does it say about your party?

 

Hi Tom,

You pose some interesting questions. I think the Kerry camp definitely used Mary Cheney in a cheap fashion to remind those on the far right in the GOP the Veep has a gay daughter. There are many Bush supporters (I have one in my congregation.) who is very, very far to the right of the GOP mainstream and if Kerry were not so liberal, this congregant may not vote for Bush but someone like Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.

Bush and Cheney disagree on the gay marriage issue. Perhaps Kerry was trying to drive a wedge between them. Perhaps he was trying to shake Bush by reminding him of the difference between him and Cheney. Perhaps Kerry really didn't know how to answer the question because Bush give a fairly moderate response about tolerance, freedom, and liberty for all Americans.

I really wish you could meet some Republicans outside the far right and the religious right. You would see a group of sincere, concerned Americans who simply have a different philosophy about how the nation should be governed. It is a myth that the GOP is a far-right party.

As an examply, in Indiana the GOP candidate for Governor is Mitch Daniels who was Bush's budget director. Daniels ran in the primary against Eric Miller, a member of the religous right. In a debate, Miller was ardently anti-gay. Daniels voiced respect and tolerance for this population. Daniels won the primary hands down.

If you look at most of the nation's GOP governors you will find moderates, not far rightists. Governors like Douglas of Vermont, Murkowski of Alaska, Lingle of Hawaii, Owens of Colorado, Romney of Michigan, and a host of others are moderates.

GOP U.S. Senators and memers of Congress like Shays of Connecticut, Murkowski of Alaska, Collins and Snowe of Maine, Chaffe of Rhode Island, Cochran of Mississippi, and others are moderates.

Now, I don't see how the GOP talks out of both sides of its mouth. Being for a constitutional ban on gay marriage (which I do not support) and supporting civil liberties for gays are not contradictory.

You advocate for the separation of church and state, I believe. Should the government force churches of marry gays? No, it shouldn't.

Should gays be allowed to marry outside the boundaries of the church? Yes, they should. In a representative democracy, everyone is entitled to equal rights in a civil, respectful, cultured society.

 

Jimmy,

I appreciate that there are many moderate Republicans. Perhaps they are even the majority. The religious right is the most vocal, and I do feel they wield power that is not commensurate with the numbers. Maybe it is commensurate to the dollars donated. I don't know.

You say that perhaps Kerry was trying to remind the GOP that Chency has a gay daughter. This is only a problem if the fact that Cheney has a gay daughter is itself a problem. Is it a problem? If it's a problem, then it says something about the party, and perhaps the core is not so evolved as you say.

You say perhaps Kerry was trying to drive a wedge between Bush and Cheney. Is that really possible? If so, once again it says more about Bush and Cheney than it does about Kerry.

So this is why I'm puzzled. The GOP is angry, but nobody has been able to fully explain why they're mad. The answer is always an answer that begs another question. "It was a cheap shot." "Why is it a cheap shot?"

Supporting the constitutional ban, yet supporting civil liberties for gays may not be strictly contradictory. The former is certainly mean-spirited at the very least. I'm not sure how many Republicans support the ban AND civil liberties. You are certainly part of the minority by being against the ban and for civil liberties.

I appreciate your comments.

 

Jimmy,
Like Tom, I also appreciate your comments. However, I'm responding to the one slice above that I'm picking out of your most recent quote.

I think it is a GOOD THING that Kerry reminded the GOP far right that one of their most prized leaders (Cheney) has a gay daughter. Time for that crowd to wake up and smell the roses - homosexuality is a fact of life, from ancient times to present, and we ought not discriminate against or harm those who have made this a life style either by choice or by natural inclination. The fact that the far right can't come to terms with this is precisely why Kerry was correct in pointing out this hypocrisy.

And, if it gets a few of those die-hards to sit on their hands rather than vote for Bush this time around - all the better!

Maybe you'll also vote for Kerry by the time the day of decision comes? It would be a true mark of intelligence on your part if that were to occur.

Best wishes regardless....
- Carl

 

Thanks to both of you, Tom and Carl (minus the crack about being intelligent if I vote for Kerry, ha!).

We must remember that 90% of African-Americans vote for the Democratic nominee for President and that 75% of that population abhors homosexuality and supports a ban on gay marriages. This population is certainly not far right, are they?

Jesse Jackson spoke to a number of African-American churches in the past few weeks and told them to vote Kerry in spite of their stance on homosexuality.

Oh well, thanks for the discussion and input. You have both been very civil and have comported yourselves with dignity and honor. Thank you!

One more thing: I don't think opposition to Kerry's remarks are germane to any one particular group or party. As I said, 40% of Kerry's supporters thought his remark inappropriate.

Take care guys!