Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (19053)	10/16/2004 10:39:54 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I agree that it was no secret, that the Cheney's had openly discussed the matter. But acknowledging it and expressing their support for their own daughter, generally in response to a question on the subject, is a lot different than bringing up the sexuality of someone else's daughter in such a gratuitous manner. I suspected when Edwards did it face to face with Cheney, and Kerry doing it in Cheney's absence strengthens my suspicion as it was so much more underhanded, that bringing up Cheney's daughter was intended just as the WSJ suggested - to suppress turnout from far right, ultra-religious voters. It doesn't matter that none of them will vote for Kerry - the point is to dampen their enthusiasm for the Bush/Cheney ticket just enough that a few won't bother to vote. In some of the battleground states, very small numbers can swing the whole state. It's a very cynical, underhanded approach to campaigning, but that's the "say anything" campaign they're running. Cahill's "she's fair game" comment confirms it. JMO, Bob PS: The "say anything - voters are too stupid to know the difference" approach is trickling down to state level, BTW. The Dem candidate for the Senate here is running a commercial telling voters the Republican candidate wants to raise everyone's taxes by "imposing a 23% sales tax on everything you buy" and implying that this would be on top of all existing taxes and even adding that "bog corporations will pay nothing." Never mind that the "Fair Tax" replaces both the income tax and payroll taxes (the latter of which is all most lower income people pay); never mind that the first twenty or thirty thousand of spending each year is exempt (actually the equivalent tax is "rebated", so many people will actually pay a negative tax - i.e. get back more than they pay); and never mind that corporations don't pay taxes now (their customers pay them through higher prices for goods - ask any economist). Those are just troubling little facts that voters are too stupid to care about, apparently. I used to respect this Dem, BTW. She's the one who booted Cynthia McKinney from Congress by running as a moderate (and a sane person;-). But she's getting desperate and has now adopted the "say anything" campaign strategy, too.

To: Suma who wrote (19053)	10/16/2004 12:31:27 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Message 20649597 It was the kind of spontaneous love-fest Heinz Kerry has not always received on the campaign trail, where she has been described as more cerebral than emotional and where she has been on the receiving end of right-wing attacks. Is the pretense being promoted here that Bush and Cheney have not been on the receiving end of LEFT WING attacks? Sure sounds like. Despite the fact that she was once married to late Republican Sen. John Heinz, the GOP has tried to turn the billionaire philanthropist into the second coming of Hillary Clinton, demonizing everything from her Portuguese accent to the causes supported by the Heinz family foundations she controls. You don't find a billionaire champion of the common man to be slightly suspicious? I'm surprised John's comments have taken on a negative theme. John was being positive and complimentary of how the Cheneys have handled, openly, the question of their daughter's lesbianism, just as John Edwards was in his debate. Probably, if John had really thought about it, he'd have mentioned no name. He'd have talked about how people of all kinds of religious persuasions, conservative and liberal, have gay children, and that it's not a choice. I previously asked what the reaction wopuld be to Cheney, then Bush, raising the issue of Kerry's daughters "fashion statement" at Cannes. I think this is a fair comparison. I never got an answer. Also the role od genetics, upbringing and choice in this matter, to the best of my knowledge, is still under dispute. A person doesn't choose their sexuality. Debatable statement stated as a fact. It seemed to me the more newsworthy part of the debate is that the president of the United States said he didn't know whether homosexuality is a choice, despite the overwhelming evidence that -- as you say -- it's not. If it's that overwhelming, I'd like to see it. And studies on the other side. On the other hand, I'm sure you can understand how painful the scrutiny of a campaign like this can be on a family. None of your three sons are gay. But what if one were? Wouldn't it make you especially protective of privacy? Yes, wouldn't you? No, not at all. As a parent, I love my children, and I hope I first gave them their roots and then their wings to fly. What a parent wants is for them to have the confidence to be who they are. I want to love all my children no matter who they are and to be proud of all of them. Nice quote during a heated, close campaign. I, for one, don't beleive it. Both you and your husband have been demonized by the usual right-wing suspects, from Rush Limbaugh to Matt Drudge to the Swift Boat Veterans. Looked at truthout.org or its ilk lately? The RNC has acknowledged a mailer saying John Kerry wants to allow gay marriage and ban the Bible. Does that give you a special empathy for their plight? And GWB has been accused of being being 911 and of invading Iraq and getting other Americans kids killed for oil. Because I grew up in a dictatorship, I saw first-hand how people try to control others. They do whatever it takes to control and suppress what they don't like. In many respects, what I might represent is a kind of independence some of these people don't want to see in women. Period. Or in the spouse of a senior official and, God forbid, the president. They just can't handle that. Oh, cut it out, Tay-Ray-Zah. This country had some strong and independent First Ladies before YOU ever heard of the place. I know he's not conservative because of these deficits. Name me a war time President in the last century who did not have deficits. Just One. BTW, the 1st 2 to run deficits were DEMOCRATS. Enough for now. I need to go. That was a political damage control piece. Nothing more.