Comments on: What Attack? http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack design.ui.technology.art.interaction.writing.creativity.politics.environment.family Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:25:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Brian http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-144 Brian Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:46:47 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-144 "I think Dick and Lynne Cheney’s reactions are within the realm of the upset reaction any parent would have about a political opponent bringing their child into a debate. " JRW, Mary Cheney has actively and conspicuously campaigned for her father. She's an adult and she chose to involve herself in the campaign. She brought herself into the campaign. Just like her mother. “I think Dick and Lynne Cheney’s reactions are within the realm of the upset reaction any parent would have about a political opponent bringing their child into a debate. ”

JRW, Mary Cheney has actively and conspicuously campaigned for her father. She’s an adult and she chose to involve herself in the campaign. She brought herself into the campaign. Just like her mother.

]]> By: Nick Douglas http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-115 Nick Douglas Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:11:36 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-115 Right on, Brian. The response of the Cheneys reveals their unresolved problems with their daughter's homosexuality. It even reveals, to me, the incompatibility of absolutism with a pluralistic population and thus the ideological tension that will never relax until either Christianity or atheism is wiped out. Right on, Brian. The response of the Cheneys reveals their unresolved problems with their daughter’s homosexuality. It even reveals, to me, the incompatibility of absolutism with a pluralistic population and thus the ideological tension that will never relax until either Christianity or atheism is wiped out.

]]> By: Brian http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-101 Brian Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:21:57 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-101 In reality, it's the Cheneys who are insulting their daughter. Kerry's comment can only be considered an attack if homosexuality is considered something negative. In reality, it’s the Cheneys who are insulting their daughter. Kerry’s comment can only be considered an attack if homosexuality is considered something negative.

]]> By: jrw http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-100 jrw Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:08:46 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-100 I've thought about this for a few days. I think Dick and Lynne Cheney's reactions are within the realm of the upset reaction any parent would have about a political opponent bringing their child into a debate. It's sort of "hands off" territory in that regard. At the same time, Mary Cheney is part of the Bush-Cheney campaign, and has been for a while, which makes it a little fuzzier about whether she's fair game for the other side to use. The liberal side does have a point when it talks about the reaction having sounded overly defensive, overly outraged, from the beginning. One dailykos poster went into an analysis of the words "cheap and tawdry" (as opposed to other negative adjectives that didn't have a connotation of sleazy sexuality). I grant that Dick and Lynne Cheney's reaction as parents was natural and appropriate, but all of the other pundits and so on who are yelling are upset in a different way. There is something to be said for the view that this is only a horrible tactic and a smear (or whatever it is supposed to be) if you think homosexuality is wrong, and that mentioning someone's sexuality is a bad thing. I was annoyed by one op-ed piece I read that described John Kerry has having grinned as he mentioned Mary Cheney, which is not at all the case. He spoke very slowly and carefully and soberly. However, this is also what makes me conclude that this was an extremely deliberate move on Kerry's part, a political shiv that he decided to stick into the other team's ribs right at the last question of the last debate. It punctures a particular Republican hypocrisy concerning gays and lesbians, and the most effective way to make that point was to invoke Mary Cheney. This is if you assume Kerry did it deliberately, and I think you'd have to really underestimate him in order to think he didn't. At the same time, I think the rest of Kerry's answer (to the "Is homosexuality a choice?") question was direct and thoughtful. I have come to the conclusion that it was a dirty trick, and also that the hypocrisy needed to be punctured. I don't think anybody's hands are quite clean. I’ve thought about this for a few days. I think Dick and Lynne Cheney’s reactions are within the realm of the upset reaction any parent would have about a political opponent bringing their child into a debate. It’s sort of “hands off” territory in that regard. At the same time, Mary Cheney is part of the Bush-Cheney campaign, and has been for a while, which makes it a little fuzzier about whether she’s fair game for the other side to use.

The liberal side does have a point when it talks about the reaction having sounded overly defensive, overly outraged, from the beginning. One dailykos poster went into an analysis of the words “cheap and tawdry” (as opposed to other negative adjectives that didn’t have a connotation of sleazy sexuality). I grant that Dick and Lynne Cheney’s reaction as parents was natural and appropriate, but all of the other pundits and so on who are yelling are upset in a different way. There is something to be said for the view that this is only a horrible tactic and a smear (or whatever it is supposed to be) if you think homosexuality is wrong, and that mentioning someone’s sexuality is a bad thing.

I was annoyed by one op-ed piece I read that described John Kerry has having grinned as he mentioned Mary Cheney, which is not at all the case. He spoke very slowly and carefully and soberly. However, this is also what makes me conclude that this was an extremely deliberate move on Kerry’s part, a political shiv that he decided to stick into the other team’s ribs right at the last question of the last debate. It punctures a particular Republican hypocrisy concerning gays and lesbians, and the most effective way to make that point was to invoke Mary Cheney. This is if you assume Kerry did it deliberately, and I think you’d have to really underestimate him in order to think he didn’t. At the same time, I think the rest of Kerry’s answer (to the “Is homosexuality a choice?”) question was direct and thoughtful.

I have come to the conclusion that it was a dirty trick, and also that the hypocrisy needed to be punctured. I don’t think anybody’s hands are quite clean.

]]> By: Jacqueline http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-99 Jacqueline Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:22:55 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-99 I'd like to hear what Mary Cheney had to say about Kerry's statement. My guess is that it isn't something quite so negative as the statements by her parents. Good post, Ryan. I’d like to hear what Mary Cheney had to say about Kerry’s statement. My guess is that it isn’t something quite so negative as the statements by her parents.

Good post, Ryan.

]]> By: Matthew Murray http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-98 Matthew Murray Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:51:15 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/10/15/what-attack#comment-98 Lest you think I'm only always an idiotic, right-wing kook, I also don't understand all the fuss made over this. I can vaguely understand why some people might be unsettled by it, particularly if they see it as an attempt on Kerry's part to erode the strong base provided by Bush's religious supporters, but that's more in the direction of conspiracy theory than I'm willing to go. I think the Cheneys and everyone else involved really overreacted. I must, however, say one additional thing:<blockquote>Who would want dishonest, manipulative jerks like this running our country?</blockquote>I would. And while I don't approve of everything that Cheney and Bush do, I prefer them to the dishonest, manipulative jerks they're running against. Lest you think I’m only always an idiotic, right-wing kook, I also don’t understand all the fuss made over this. I can vaguely understand why some people might be unsettled by it, particularly if they see it as an attempt on Kerry’s part to erode the strong base provided by Bush’s religious supporters, but that’s more in the direction of conspiracy theory than I’m willing to go. I think the Cheneys and everyone else involved really overreacted.

I must, however, say one additional thing:

Who would want dishonest, manipulative jerks like this running our country?

I would. And while I don’t approve of everything that Cheney and Bush do, I prefer them to the dishonest, manipulative jerks they’re running against.

]]>