It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lynne and Dick Cheney Slam Kerry for His "Tawdry" Remark

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:00 PM
Lynne and Dick Cheney respond to Kerry's use of her daughter as political fodder. Kerry of course has a history of such behavior having used his fellow Vietnam Veterans as political fodder in the seventies.

Lynn Cheney Slams Kerry Lesbian Remark
by Doreen Brandt Newscenter

Washington Bureau

Posted: October 14, 2004 11:03 am ET

(Washington) The wife of Vice President Dick Cheney is telling John Kerry to keep his nose out of her family's business, especially when it comes to Mary Cheney, her lesbian daughter.
During Wednesday night's presidential debate one of the questions asked of President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival was whether homosexuality is a matter of choice.

After Bush said he didn't know and then touted his support amending the Constitution to block same-sex marriage, Kerry said sexuality is not a matter of choice, adding: "Talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you she's being who she was."
Following the debate Lynn Cheney accused Kerry of pulling a "cheap and tawdry political trick."

Lynne Cheney blasts Kerry's remark as tawdry
Democrat invoked VP's daughter sexuality in debate

The Associated Press

Updated: 9:51 a.m. ET Oct. 14, 2004

CORAOPOLIS, Pa. - Lynne Cheney accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of pulling a cheap and tawdry political trick, apparently for invoking her daughters sexuality in his debate with President Bush.


Mrs. Cheney made clear she thought Kerry had crossed a line into family privacy when she introduced her husband to a supportive crowd of 800 after a debate-watching party in the Pittsburgh suburb of Coraopolis.

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, she said.

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.

She was not more specific. The vice president did not raise the matter in his remarks.

Senator Kerry Shows His Meaness

Kerry Lesbian Remark Angers Cheney

Associated Press Writer

October 14, 2004, 3:18 PM EDT

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Vice President Dick Cheney called himself "a pretty angry father" on Thursday after Sen. John Kerry mentioned their gay daughter during the final presidential debate -- comments Kerry said were meant to be positive about families with gay children.

The vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, called Kerry "not a good man" and his remarks about daughter Mary Cheney "a cheap and tawdry political trick." Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of vice presidential candidate John Edwards, suggested in a radio interview that Mrs. Cheney might feel "a certain degree of shame" because her daughter is a lesbian.

[edit on 04/10/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:11 PM
How many threads on this subject do we need? It is a fact that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, it is not a secret, it is common knowledge. She's in the public eye, she will be used.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by deeprivergal
How many threads on this subject do we need?

The other thread is about Kerry's remark. This thread is about the Cheneys' response. In neither thread is Mary Cheney's sexual orientation at issue.

Thank you for your assessmnt.

[edit on 04/10/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:19 PM
I find it interesting that they would be more upset at Kerry for simply mentioning that their daughter is simply being the person that she is and not living a lie.

Yet they support a president who wants to make a constitutional change to ban the marrage of people of the same sex. They support a president who wants to prevent their daughter's private rights.

that in itself is telling.


posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:23 PM
Wow, topsey turvey time again.

Cheney is - amazingly, without a trace of embarrassment - moaning and weeping about "tawdry remarks" from someone else!

They must be getting desparate.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link 2000, because of the Christian Right owning the GOP They again, loving family that they are, excluded Mary from coming on stage during the Rpeublican Convention.
Now LynnCheney, having written lesbian love novels, is at the height of hypocrisy by glossing over the fact that they got her daughter at six figure job as an advisor to their campaign on Gay issues!!
If Kerry sent Bush to ask Paul O'Neill about economics, would that draw their ire too?

My definition of a whore keeps getting a Cheney family photo stuck in it for some reason.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by wraith30
Yet they support a president who wants to make a constitutional change to ban the marrage of people of the same sex. They support a president who wants to prevent their daughter's private rights.

Not supporting "gay marriage" is not the same as being "homophobic." The most basic understanding of the social institution of marriage is all it takes to understand this.

Let us consider this excerpt from an essay discussing the judicial decision:

That this wrongly reasoned decision has been followed with a judicial mandate to redefine marriage to include "gay marriage" is serious on two levels.

First, redefining matrimony to include so-called "gay marriage" splits into opinions based on worldviews. Is homosexuality a behavior that an individual can -- indeed, must -- control, as moral common sense holds? Or does homosexuality convey an identity that government must recognize and force citizens who disagree to accommodate, as the politicized "gay agenda" demands? Simply put, is homosexuality properly a public matter of government policy, or is it a private matter of individual morality?

Second, who in our constitutionally-based republic properly gets to decide whether marriage ought to be redefined in this way? Is this correctly the purview of a single judge in a small state of our nation (remembering that the Massachusetts decision arrived on only a 4-3 vote)? Is it even rightly the proper role of the judiciary, under our Constitution's republican separation of powers, to institute such a massive social change? And, as our view is that the Constitution rests completely on the natural rights worldview of Our Founders, including the natural right of one man and one woman to form a natural family (that is, one that arises without state interventions), does this Massachusetts decision not overturn all our laws binding our nation together, by asserting a "positive rights" evolution of legal understandings? And thus we not come right back around to the worldviews at loggerheads....

Why, you might ask, if natural family formation occurs without state intervention, should our government recognize and support even natural rights marriage at all? A central reason is that the natural family, sharing labor and dividing tasks according to their particular needs and circumstances, acquires property rights in common, and creates assets to provide for the family's offspring. The state thus has a legitimate role, incidentally supporting the stability of that family relationship, in assuring its laws cover proper transfer of those family property rights on death of a parent or dissolution of the marriage through divorce. (Must we make explicit the obvious, that same-sex cohabitants cannot by themselves produce natural offspring? The key point is not that married couples can be infertile, so that some natural families will be childless couples; what's essential is rather that no same-sex couples can naturally conceive children.) Moreover, the family is the incubator of the next generation of citizens, who should be brought up in a culture of liberty to assure their future stewardship of our constitutional system of ordered liberty.

I do not support a Constitutional amendment to ban such marriages, because that is, in my opionion an abuse of the Constitution. The problem is with the courts and that's where the problem should be addressed.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:03 PM
If you don't want people people to be treated equally, and instead want to discriminate against people, guess you should be in favor of the amendment. Because if a court sees that you must treat everyone equally in their state's consitution -- guess what? They will rule in favor of gay marriage, because preventing gays from having the same rights of marriage as straight people is not treating everyone equally.

We went thru this in the other thread you posted on this....same....subject. It's not activism when a court rules in favor of equality. If you don't believe in equality, support Bush's amendment and support all these other votes on the issue springing up around the nation. If you don't want true equality, support these issues, or support adding an asterisk after equality in all those states' constitutions. Because in the eyes of the court, equality = equality; there are no exceptions.

That is NOT activism. If you don't want equality, don't include it in the laws that the courts are interpreting. List it as equality* instead.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:22 PM
The Cheney family has every right to be angry. It is not Kerry's place to bring up Mary Cheney and her sexuality. And generally Politicians know better than to do something like that. The fact that Kerry didn't know better, or knew better and chose to deliver a low blow anyway, shows the type of man he is.

While watching the various discussions after the debate last night one of the correspondants said that he was in the press room during the debates. He said that after Kerry brought Mary Cheney up there was an audible gasp from every person in the press room. The press is generally a very liberal group and certainly they are tough to shock. The fact that their immediate reaction was to gasp says a lot.


posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:25 PM
What someone does in there bedroom is there business. Who one lives and loves is there business. But merriage is betwean a man and a woman. If we want to make laws that accommodate gay people, with the same benafits as married people. Fine, But can we keep just one thing traditional in this country. You've pushed god out of school, You've push god out court, Know we will push god out marriage. Whats next.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:26 PM
Andrew Sullivan, a conservative columnist and blogger, who happens to be gay, made some eloquent comments in response to Lynne Cheney's remarks regarding her being upset at Kerry's bringing up her daughter's homosexuality. He equated her response to a form of homophobia. I think that he brings up a good point about those who are so appalled at bringing up the name of someone who is gay and already out--so what? If Lynne Cheney is really ok with her daughter's homosexuality, then why would she lash out at Kerry?

From Andrew Sullivan's blog

SOMETHING MORE ABOUT MARY: The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here's one:

"Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing."

Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn't "bring it up" all the time. I responded: "But you've been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car." She said: "I haven't. I've never once discussed sex." My response: "Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son's work at high school. You mentioned your husband's line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that's fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I'm gay, I'm told it's all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don't you see the double standard?" Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?

For the rest of Andrew Sullivan's commentary, visit his website--

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:30 PM

I swear, Kerry didn't say "Your dyke bitch of a whoreing daughter" No, he just metioned something most people already knew, the administration that wants to make gays/lesbians criminals has one related to the big man in charge, I mean Cheney, no both right.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:38 PM
I commend Kerry for showing an open-mindedness in the Cheney family that I previously did not know existed. They have a lesbian daughter and are obviously very proud of it.

But I wish they would not use their gay pride for tawdry political point-scoring against Kerry.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Andrew Sullivan, a conservative columnist and blogger, who happens to be gay, made some eloquent comments

Sullivan's remarks are far from eloquent and he misses the fundamental point of the issue. Kerry not only used the name of a candidate's family member to make his political point on a controversial issue, but he presumed to speak for her.

Sullivan's perspective is clouded by the axe he has to grind with society. Regardless of the issue, using a person's condition or circumstances in such a situation is insensitive, at best, and it was, in my opinion, cruel. It is exploitation of the most vicious kind.

I've known this about Kerry for a long time because as a Vietnam veteran, I was one of those against whom he committed character assassination, just as he did to the Cheneys last night.

John Kerry is a man without ethics, morals, principles or shame. He is a waste of the air he breathes and contributes nothing to the world in which he lives except sewerage.

[edit on 04/10/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:45 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

John Kerry is a man without ethics, morals, principles or shame. He is a waste of the air he breathes and contributes nothing to the world in which he lives except sewerage.

[edit on 04/10/14 by GradyPhilpott]

Applause! I agree.

Edit: Double

[edit on 14-10-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

* The impression on the reader's mind being made (concerning non-President Bush's predisposition to prevaricate and misquote and deny what he has said on the record), MaskedAvatar departs for greener pastures. *

[edit on 14-10-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:47 PM
I don't think that it is funny that you would attribute that remark to me. If that's the way you feel, then attribute it to yourself.

[edit on 04/10/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 05:55 PM
I apologize with an insincere fake Bush sneer. As I mentioned, it was the Bush in me that made me say it just that way.

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:19 AM
I am amazed to see that people jump on the Cheney bandwagon screaming and tearing their hair out like a Muslim woman screaming about her martyred child when Kerry makes a remark about a person/subject that Dick'less' Cheney make public himself. Dick'less' loving Christian whore of a wife should be completely ashamed as well, for being such a bad actress.

Why are none of you making a tearing and screaming about the financial rape of your tax dollars by HALIBURTON because of King George and Dick'less' Cheney?


posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
I am amazed to see that people jump on the Cheney bandwagon screaming and tearing their hair out like a Muslim woman screaming about her martyred child when Kerry makes a remark about a person/subject that Dick'less' Cheney make public himself.

The Republicans have been looking for a slander wagon since the DNC when they were "SHOCKED" the Democrats would be so vile as to "exploit" the sacred "ism" of Reagan by putting a face on an issue at the request of his son. Swing and a miss...

And they just tried again to demonize Edwards for mentioning Chris Reeve regarding Stem Cells after his death. Strike two...

Now the gay thing. And they're DROOLING this time too like they finally have something to respin a lost debate where Kerry's likability ratings now match Bush (his very last saving grace in polls).

Poor grown up adult political activist and Bush staffer Mary. Only paid $100,000 for her silence and use as a prop to Bush-Cheney. But she's off limits except when Dick brings her up first!!! And a "loving" Father does have that right when appealing to California Republicans (aka future Democrats yet to hear the news the party of Reagan's is dead and buried).

How dare names be put to issues. This election isn't about people. It's about abstract ideology. Verbs. Adjectives. Labels. Isms. Words on the march. Good and evil, but definitely NOT PEOPLE! Gasp, anything but people!!!

Keep it straight you Democrats! Thou shall not put a face on the misery and divisivness of Republican ideology!

Or Momma Cheney (who still has no gay daughter) will get political on yer azz. :shk:

PS - Watching FoxNews now. Ouch. Right wing guests saying Bush got it wrong, homosexuality IS a choice and the result of poor upbringing or psychological issues. Yeeeeeeeees. CHENEY'S GAY DAUGHTER HIS FAULT! Keep it up RNC! Pound this issue. Shame your beloved Mary. Shame. Shame. Shame. :shk: They NEVER know when to quit for their own good.

This is not an issue Republicans can afford to keep in the spotlight, but they're just so "right" all the time they haven't figured it out yet.
What we need now on top of it, is MORE ANGRY VETS ON TV!!! Where do I send money. Can General Ken Starr lead this charge too?
Nasty, angry, bitter, ANGRY Bush your true face please. Over and over and over. Run this and every little thing in the ground. MAKE MORE threads about CHENEY'S GAY DAUGHTER'S "SHAMEFUL SECRET."

General rant directed at TV and the Internet. No real named "person." I know how you guys hate that.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by RANT]

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:07 AM
So I'm guessing Bush didn't go so well again if all we have to argue about is this.

Did they discuss any real issues in the debate or just chat about Cheneys daughter?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in