Sleazy, Sleazy, Sleazy

Y'know, it was fairly shady when John Edwards made a point of bringing Dick Cheney's daughter into the debate last week. Kerry's insistence on gratuitously pulling her in made me want to spit at the screen. Nothing about the point he was making required it; using people's relatives to score debating points is high on the list of classless moves.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Agreed

  • ||

    You and I had the exact same reaction.

  • ||

    What brought that up? Did i blank out during the debate?

  • ||

    It was dumb of Kerry to do that. Stupid, in fact. So unnecessary...

  • ||

    Same here.

  • ||

    couldn't agree more. kerry has no class. like his awful wife. hey - did I just mention a relative to make my point? doh!

  • ||

    Ditto.

    Better yet was Kerry trying to associate himself with John McCain and Bush reminding us that McCain
    endorses Bush.

  • ||

    Apparently Mary Cheney is the only gay person that either Kerry or Edwards knows. I guess neither one of them reads Andrew Sullivan.

  • ||

    This gay man agrees.

  • ||

    I was disgusted when I heard it and complained about it being such a cheap shot, and that Edwards did the same thing.

  • ||

    Kerry has taken such pains to define himself as being every bit as anti-gay-marriage as Bush. So why is he bringing up the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter? What is Kerry's argument here -- that only people with 100%-hetero families should be allowed to discriminate against gays?

    The whole thing smells like a not-too-subtle appeal to Democratic and Republican homophobes.

  • ||

    I was disgusted when I heard it and complained about it being such a cheap shot, and that Edwards did the same thing.

  • ||

    Mary Beth Cahill said after the debate that Ms. Cheney was "fair game." I guess that settles it.

  • ||

    I think Mr Kerry will retire a Senator after tonight

  • ||

    I felt like someone punched me in the gut. I still feel nauseous thinking about it. Just really wrong. Where is his head at.

  • ||

    I think Mr Kerry will retire a Senator after tonight

  • ||

    Did anyone notice how pissed off Teresa looked after the debate? The woman is a ticking time bomb. Kerry acts like he's afraid of her.

  • ||

    So Ms Cheney is game, is she? Disgusting.

  • ||

    Pre Nupt? His Senate salary does not support his lifestyle.

  • huski||

    The Kerry spinner just said that Mary Cheney was "a major campaign figure"...and was therefore fair game...really?!!! Classless and revealing of how others are just tools to be used in Kerry's ambition.

  • ||

    What do you expect from a man who betrayed his country, especially the POWs held in Vietnam. Kerry is vile and tone deaf to inappropriate behavior.

  • ||

    Did anyone notice how pissed off Teresa looked after the debate? The woman is a ticking time bomb. Kerry acts like he's afraid of her.

  • ||

    Disgraceful -- the ONLY reason for Kerry to mention Mary Cheney is to make sure everyone knows Dick Cheney raised a lesbian.

  • ||

    So I suppose if Bush noted that THK is an airhead witch, that would be fair game too?

  • ||

    To those who have made Teresa remarks:

    Please note that no one has claimed Laura is not fair game - she has inserted herself into this campaign only slightly less than Mrs. Heinz-Kerry has. I doubt there'd be much disgust if she were dragged into a question about, oh say, librarians and manslaughter. Mary Cheney is a passing figure in the campaign at most. She's worked on the campaign, but no one has ever spent five minutes talking about "That speech Mary Cheney gave last night."

    It IS offsides to bring her into this. And the fact that Kerry/Edwards have done it twice now does not indicate well for how much class these men have.

    It's really a sad time when, of the people discussing it, Dick Cheney behaves with the most decorum (i.e. ceding his time on the issue after his own flesh and blood had been mentioned without predicate).

    "...a small classless man..." - Mark Steyn.

  • ||

    I wondered at the time what Kerry was trying to do. I wonder is he trying to turn conservative Christians away from the voting booth the way Bush's DUI four years ago did?

  • ||

    Like Julian & the others, I thought the Mary Chaney comment was classless, low, uncalled for, etc. But in the back of my partisan mind i'm cynically wondering if Kedwards isn't completely misunderstanding and underestimating the body politic. From my experience, even social conservatives uncomfortable with gays get turned off when a presidential candidate gratuitously drags out innocent relatives for all to gawk at. Methinks the Kedwards team has outsmarted itself on this one, believing the Bush yokels will react in horror at this remark. Well, the react in horror part is right, but I honestly think this could disgust a significant portion of voters into refusing to pull the Kerry lever.

  • ||

    Call out the National Inquirer, the sex lives of Kerry's daughters are now fair game.

  • ||

    I don't have a dog in this race, but I'm thinkin that Kerry's bringing up Mary Cheney is going to damage him more than Bush's denial of his "don't worry bout Osama" statement.

    I may be wrong however.

  • ||

    BFGM: Do you really think the Republicans want to put gays in death camps? To think, that ignorant and malicious people like you would be running this country if Kerry is elected.

  • ||

    I was watching with neighbors and everyone agreed that Kerry made a couple of real stinkers tonight. The Mary Cheney remark was one, Integrity, Integrity, Integrity! was the other.

  • Mexile||

    Oh grow up! You are shocked! Shocked to discover that one politicans used another politican's family values to expose a weakness in his opponent's positions. C'mon... it's not like Kerry brought up Bush's drunk driving arrests, his cocaine addiction, or Laura's unintentional homicide. He didn't bring up the Bush daughters' unage binge drinking... he mentioned an adult who acknowledges her sexual orientation and has become a public figure. Whether it's right or wrong to make her a "symbolic" figure, I don't know. I know Bush's people are doing their best to spin this into some sort of sleazy immoral beyond-the-pale sort of action, but the whole thing strikes me as rather absurd.

  • ||

    Why is it out of bounds to bring up Cheney's daughter? There shouldn't be anything embarassing or secret about being out, gay and with a partner. Which was exactly Kerry's point. It's a political point, and Kerry was participating in a political debate. Andrew Sullivan has a good comment on this.

  • Knemon||

    Big Fat Gay Man - do you by any chance own a Comic Book and Baseball Card Emporium?

  • ||

    There is no point to mentioning her. If the question was how you would deal with family members who are gay, maybe it would be relevant. But when one goes way out of the way to bring in a person's orientation, something else is going on. Does he think that by reminding people that Cheney has a gay daughter this will hurt Bush? Shows a real lack of class at least, and seems shameless to me.

  • ||

    The Republican thing to do would have been to say Mary Cheney was Dick's illegitimate child by a black whore.

  • ||

    I considered the remark out of place. There was no reason to use her name. She is not the candidate and even if she was, I still don't think it was called for. One should never 'out' someone unless given permission. He owes Mary Cheney an apology. Since he has never seen fit to apologize for his remarks about veterans, I won't hold my breath.

  • ||

    In a political debate, both partakers seek the way of harming THE MOST the other guy's position, in other words, they will try to hurt the other guy as much as they can. If they do something to help the other one...well, they are stupid. Soooo... If Kerry brought up that girl's private life was to HURT REPUBLICANS. In other words, Kerry was implying that TO BE A LESBIAN IS A BAD THING to be pointed at to attack your rival. If gay people can't see that Kerry has a BIG trouble there (he's was for it before he was against it), they won't have any solidarity with each other. It's a very low attitude to bring miss Chaney's private life up like this to the lightlime. You gay people, never forget that she was brought up by Kerry BECAUSE OF HER PRIVATE LIFE. That is perverse and crappy.

  • ||

    And how about Kerry's answer to the last question? Claiming to have,"Married _UP_". Add it to the "litany" of idiotic tasteless Kerry comments. And, Yeah, that would be my bet for what his SUGAR MOMMA was so pissed about.....

  • ||

    I think it's ridiculous to imply that this was done to woo homophobes. It was tacky nonetheless.

    There is a point, though, to bringing this up. One that needs to be addressed by the right. It's easy to be anti-gay when you only understand it as a sodomy issue. If they made the mistake of thinking of gays as people, they would realize how at odds it is with their pro-family rhetoric.

  • ||

    I think both Kerry and Edward's comments about Mary Cheney were way out of line. But what would anyone expect from a trial lawyer and "judeas." Kerry's remarks about Ms. Cheney, pale in comparison to what the charges he levelled against his fellow veterans in 1971. He's just horrible.

  • ||

    I think both Kerry and Edward's comments about Mary Cheney were way out of line. But what would anyone expect from a trial lawyer and "judeas." Kerry's remarks about Ms. Cheney, pale in comparison to what the charges he levelled against his fellow veterans in 1971. He's just horrible.

  • ||

    I think both Kerry and Edward's comments about Mary Cheney were way out of line. But what would anyone expect from a trial lawyer and "judeas." Kerry's remarks about Ms. Cheney, pale in comparison to what the charges he levelled against his fellow veterans in 1971. He's just horrible.

  • ||

    A few things:

    1) Cheney's daughter was not outed. Who doesn't know that she's a lesbian? But Kerry using her was tasteless.

    2) Not all Republicans are homophobes. Not even all people of the religious right are homophobes; I know many who aren't. You can be against gay marriage and not be a homophobe. (It always amazes me how bigots, left or right, are blind to their own bigotry.)

    3) Kerry has a more sophisticated view of personal freedom, but his economics are moronic at best.

    4) Bush's views on economics are decent, if not perfect, but he can be scary when he gets so "spiritual".

  • ||

    "Did anyone notice how pissed off Teresa looked after the debate? The woman is a ticking time bomb. Kerry acts like he's afraid of her."

    Wouldn't you be afraid, too, if you had to wake up to that face every morning? That broad is double-bag coyote ugly even AFTER all the makeup and special effects.

  • ||

    VRWconspiracy says Kerry is "vile and tone deaf."

    That's it exactly!! Makes me fear for the future of our country.

  • ||

    Mr Nice Guy, do you know what double coyote ugly is?

    When you wake up with someone so ugly that you chew your arm off to aviod waking them up while you crawl away. And then you chew off the other arm because you know they will be looking for a one armed man.

    Have you heard about the blonde coyote? It chewed off three legs and was still stuck in the trap.

  • ||

    Kerry has made some really stupid comments during the debates that, while not all that pertinent as far as policy and what not, were stupid nonetheless.

    First off, during last Friday's debate, he apparently determined that you can tell who makes over $200,000 a year simply by quickly looking at them.

    Last night, it was the Mary Cheney thing.

    I could google this but i'm too lazy. I seem to remember during the 2000 campaign Al Gore getting a question about being against vouchers but sending his kids to private schools and he was applauded for saying something along the lines of "i'll thank you to keep my children out of this".

  • ||

    The acid test for many controversies like these is what would have happened if the other side had said it?

    If Edwards had a gay child and Bush brought it up I have a feeling he would have been crucified for a "smear" attempt.

    There was no reason to bring her into the debate. Consequently it can only be viewed as a politically calculated, cynical, decision. Since both Kerry and Edwards went out of their way to bring it up it is certain they saw political value in using it.

    Both are opportunists of the highest sort. This incident should cement that fact to the intellectually honest.

  • Kevin Carson||

    Hmmm. Three tortured comparisons to Kerry's VVAW activities thirty years ago. Is this a GOP talking point?

  • ||

    You might be right about the GOP talking points.

    On the 'who won' article there are a bunch of 'Kerry won' posts that seem to all be from the same person with different names.

  • ||

    Those three comparisons weren't so tortured. And since when does Kerry's mother use GOP talking points? You were referring to Integrity! Integrity! Integrity!, weren't you?

  • Morat||

    Jag: Don't be a moron. Why would Edwards -- or any Democrat -- consider having a gay child a "Smear".

    Get this through your head: Mentioning Mary Cheney was gay is only a smear if there's something bad about being gay.

    And it certainly was fair game. Mary Cheney is openly gay, worked for a number of years for Coors in outreach to gay communities, and is a member of the Bush/Cheney campaign. She's the daughter of the Vice President, has been a public figure for the last dozen years at least, and there is no one on God's green Earth that doesn't think she's gay.

    Had the question been about Redheads, and Kerry noted that many people -- and pointed out Dick's daughter -- were born with red hair, would you be so pissed?

    You're just showing your own homophobia.

    Now, Alan Keyes comment about Mary Cheney was dispicable. See if you can spot the difference.

    And you wonder why no one votes Libertarian. Jesus.

  • ||

    Morat,

    My point was if Bush brought it up it would have been REGARDED as a smear.
    To imagine that both Kerry and Edwards bringing it up was incidental is so naive its beyond description. Hey, they did it deliberately to gain SOMETHING and it wasn't gay votes now was it?

    I'm "homophobic"? Fine. If you can read that into my original observation you must be quite a piece of work yourself. I'm a moron? Well, if you believe Kerry and Edwards weren't being disgraceful then you can join me in my abject stupidity.

  • Ray||

    What is the matter with you all here? What did Kerry do wrong, exactly? Mary Cheney is a grown woman, not Chelsea at 14. And she heads the vice presidential campaign. For gosh sakes.

  • ||

    Morat: I don't think you quite get it. Miguel explained it better, further up the line of posts. Here's my take on it:

    Kerry's comment was actually a double-reverse homophobic comment.

    Analogy: Let's say we have two candidates, Smith and Jones. Let's say Smith is opposed to "affirmative action: and Jones is for it.

    Smith says something like, "I'm not racist and I have nothing against minorities. However, I don't think it serves anyone well for the government to designate certain races as 'disadvantaged minorities' and mandate preferences in hiring or school admissions because of their race."

    And Jones says something like, "The problem is, a lot of people in our society ARE racist, and therefore our society holds a lot of people back because of their race. And what's wrong with leveling the playing field? I think that's only fair. Who would possibly believe otherwise? Say, Smith, I believe your own sister just married a black fellow, didn't she? Don't that beat all! And now he's part of a wealthy and well-connected family -- that sure helped level the playing field for him! Why shouldn't we do something to help other blacks also?"

    There's nothing wrong with being black, obviously. It's not something to hide. But Jones' comment has a subtext: "Hey, Smith, because your supporters are anti-affirmative action, they must be racist. I'm going to mention your N-word brother-in-law to shake them up, because surely they are going to regard that as a bad thing and hold it against you. You're an 'N-word lover'!"

    Cheney's daughter being gay should not be something to hide -- but the subtext of Kerry's comment was that it was, and he was trying to use that to drive a wedge between Bush and his supposedly homophobic supporters. Without the subtext, there was no reason for him to make the comment.

  • esco||

    Are you people morons? The only reason this would be considered a "low blow" would be if you find homosexuality to be something negative. If that's the case spit at your bigotry not Edwards or Kerry.

  • ||

    A shorter alternative to my long-winded blather above:

    "Had the question been about Redheads, and Kerry noted that many people -- and pointed out Dick's daughter -- were born with red hair, would you be so pissed?"

    Yup, if Kerry made the comment because he assumed Bush supporters were a bunch of evil, ignorant, rampant red-hair-phobes. Kerry can't come out and say anyone who votes for Bush is a homophobe, but he obviously spoke on that assumption. The real insult is against Bush supporters .... the insult to Cheney's daughter is only secondary, in that she's being so used to further the oblique insult.

  • ||

    Basically, Kerry is trying to whip up bad feelings toward Cheney's daughter among Bush supporters. He presupposed bigotry among them, AND he tried to capitalize on it. That's why it's sleazy.

    Now I'm done trying to explain it.

  • Ray||

    Jesus. Whatever. I'm glad you're done. I don't get it. He not only mentioned that she was gay, but said "we are all God's children." What an insult! What a mean, mean man to note that some people, like Cheney's campaign director, just happen to be gay and that they didn't become gay as a choice, but just are. Bush couldn't even acknowledge as much, and he has a gay person as a major official in his political partnership's campaign.

  • ||

    Ray,
    I once heard a clan dude explain total ignorance that burning a cross was a racist thing to do. He said it was just cultural.

    I am not saying you are a bigot. But you kind of sound like him, feigning total ignorance at a sleazy thing that everyone else recognizes.

    I really don't have a bone in the gay marriage thing, but I did think it was unecessary for Edwards to mention it, because I thought he was bringing family into unecessarily. And I had a bad feeling in my gut when Kerry did it. Why should Bush be answering to the daughter of his vice president? Couldn't Kerry have used a willing acomplice like Barney Frank?

  • ||

    kwais,

    If the goal is to demonstrate hypocrisy, the example would need to be a prominent gay Republican. Would it have been acceptable if the head of the VP's re-election efforts was gay but NOT the VP's daughter? Would the comment then be fair game?

    Anon

  • Ray||

    I'd say the cross-burning thing is a *wee bit* over the top. Mary Cheney is not just family. Cross-burning on an individual's property is, in many states, rightly seen as form of intimidation, and as such is in many states illegal. Kerry was not putting a scarlet A on Cheney, unless you consider the term "lesbian" to be similar to one. He caller her a lesbian. He didn't call her an inferior human being who deserves to die.

    As for rying to take votes away from Bush by playing to homophones? Do you really think they're going to vote for Kerry? And if they sit at home, so what? Should Bush want their vote? Hasn't he been wanting the votes of Christian evangelicals who hate gays? Isn't it absolutely, painfully obvious? I've grown to ahve a lot of respect for libertarians in reading this site, but the Mary Cheney thread is making me lose quite a bit of it.

  • ||

    As for rying to take votes away from Bush by playing to homophones? Do you really think they're going to vote for Kerry?

    Both blacks and union members are statistically more likely to be homophobic than the general population. Both of those are key Democratic constituencies.

    So, yes, I think a lot of homophobes are going to vote for Kerry.

  • Thomas L. Knapp||

    Oh, puh-leeze.

    The Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to classify gay men and lesbians as "selfish hedonists" who are out to wreck America by "devaluing" marriage ... and then say "but look, we have a token lesbian of our own, so don't call us bigots."

    Dick Cheney hasn't hidden the fact that his daughter is gay. He's even used it as a political tool himself. At least he's had the class not to take an overtly anti-homosexuality line while doing so, as others have.

    The question had to do with whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Bush droned on about the Defense of Marriage Act, and then Kerry gave a reasonable answer. Nobody forced Mary Cheney out of the closet, and nobody forced the Republicans to use her as a cat's paw. But once both of those things happened, Kerry became as entitled to comment on it as anybody else.

    Tom Knapp

  • Ray||

    Dan:
    You still didn't answer my question. Why are Republicans upset about losing these potential voters? Because they vote and they add to numbers and Bush has been sucking up to them for years now? I don't go for your logic anyway, since it doesn't fit the way Kerry said what he did (all God's children, etc.), but even given that, the presumption is that if they fall for Kerry's presumped seduction, they're no longer GOP voters. Methinks the whole bitching about this is aimed to make Kerry look uncivil, and being seen as civil and thus presidential was his greatest strength in the debates.

  • ||

    Even you die-hard Kerry-ites have to admit that the way Lurch brought Mary Cheney into the debate was very clumsy.

    Yes, the Cheney's have been "open" about the issue, but I think it was to defuse hysteria on both sides (the gay movement and the homophobes). Mary Cheney is a campaign worker and chooses to stay mostly out of the limelight (probably because she is sick of all the attention her lifestyle is getting). Her sexuality, whether you "accept" it or not, is a private issue. Lurch dragged it out to score political points, plain and simple. He totally comes across as being a flaming asshole.

  • Ray||

    Well, the reference to "Lurch" certainly does a lot to convince me, here at a site called "Reason." Mary Cheney worked in gay and lesbian outreach with Coors. I don't think she's trying to hide anything. She also worked with the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance formed within the Republican Party. The idea was to increase tolerance within the party. Guess that worked out really well! No, Bush hasn't been making gay hate a plank in his platform.

  • ||

    I will never defend the Republican knuckle-draggers when it comes to gay issues. They are 90% wrong on social issues, because they are blinded by hate and ignorance, or simply exploit it.

    The fact is, there are countless gay people Lurch could've mentioned in his point. Why Mary Cheney?

  • Ray||

    He picked Mary Cheney specifically to remind people that, although Bush went on about how he doesn't know whether sexuality is a choice or not and he wants to write gays of of the constitution, the daughter of his political partner is gay. And isn't that a little ironic? What, then, is the big deal about being gay? It might have been better to point out that she works with the campaign too. Maybe he could have made the whole hypocrisy of it all a bit more clear.

  • ||

    I have changed my opinion on this, thanks party to Andrew Sullivan. At first I thought it was out of line, until I realized the central question is whether you perceive homosexuality as something you are born with yet need to hide. She doesn't hide it, she's running her father's campaign - it's fair game to point out the Republican party's hypocrisy on this issue.

    Both blacks and union members are statistically more likely to be homophobic than the general population.

    That has got to be the silliest comment yet. Dan, if I didn't already know you were a shill for the Republican party I would demand to see a source for this.

    Her sexuality, whether you "accept" it or not, is a private issue.

    Bullshit. It ceased being a private issue the moment she revealed it to the public. The next time your male coworkers joke about banging every chick that walks by, tell them their sexuality is a "private issue".

  • ||

    All this serves is a stark illustration of why ANYONE's sexual orientation should be ignored in public policy. Once you plant the seed of politicizing sexuality (from any side), this is what you reap. What's next? "I don't know how I feel about pornography, but all I do know, is if you ask my opponent, he'll tell you his wife loves to watch threesomes on tape before they get it on. Nothing wrong with that. That's the way God made her." And 'marrying' God and sexuality and politics??? Sheesh, no wonder there's such a sh*tstorm swirling around this issue...

  • ||

    Once you plant the seed of politicizing sexuality (from any side), this is what you reap.

    OK, then why do I have to hear so goddamn much about the candidates' wives and kids? Every time some guy blathers on about his wife, I have to think about what goes on in the bedroom and it just makes me sick, sick, sick!

  • ||

    Can You Help a Friend of Mine?

    I am writing with some urgency today because a friend of mine needs our help. He is a middle-aged man with two children, a wife of twenty-some years, and a teetering job which he may well lose in the next few weeks. He is a solid Christian, a growing believer who spends time praying and reading his Bible every day.

    Some people say that coming to Christ is a guarantee of worldly success. My friend would beg to differ with you. Since he began to live for Jesus Christ, and apply his faith to life-circumstances, he has experienced a dogged battle, both from his employers and also in the spiritual realm.

    It�s funny. When I asked my friend what I could do to help, what my friends and church could do, he simply said: �Pray. Pray and tell others about my circumstances.�

    Lately, an aggressive, boisterous man has been trying to get my friend fired and get his job. He�s incessantly criticized my friend and distorted his work record. Sadly, it seems to be working. My friend used to enjoy the praise and admiration of 9 out of 10 of his employers and co-workers. Today, only about one-half of them still support him.

    He explains that some of these people are so hateful, so hate-filled that he knows he�s under a major spiritual attack. Since taking his job, for example, he has worked very hard to change his company�s stance on abortion. He succeeded in getting them to stop funding certain abortions. He has tried to cultivate a �culture of life� at work, and is close to possibly ending the company�s participation in abortions entirely. He needs more time on the job to accomplish this, but it is no longer beyond possibility.

    He has proposed changing the company�s charter to support traditional families. Some in the company have �demanded� marriage rights and civil unions, along with employer benefits, for gay couples. He has stood firmly, and sometimes alone. Yet he knows that the future of America hinges on the morality of her people.

    My friend designed and launched a creative, successful outreach program to needy families in the community. Uniquely linking faith and assistance programs, funded by the company, he was able to leverage millions upon millions of dollars which otherwise would have gone for program administration and oversight. Also, millions of new needy individuals and families have been reached under this program.

    My friend brought Bible study and prayer into the corporate offices. Not as a mandate, of course, but as an opportunity for persons of faith to encourage one another, and to apply their faith at work. It became as common to see people bringing their Bible to work as toting a newspaper.

    He also wrote a new education program for children of employees. It is designed to ensure that children can read and write at an early age, and that students are tested regularly to ensure that quality education is taking place. He even got some officers from other corporations to help implement the program. They enjoyed the limelight and press coverage, but have since betrayed my friend.

    My friend also noticed that employees were taking home too little of their pay. With an average federal withholding rate of 33%, employees were struggling to take home half of their pay, once state and local taxes were paid. He lowered the withholding rate for employees with children, and literally sent a check home to every employee. He did this while permanently lowering the tax rate on individuals and families.

    One day, employees from another company attacked my friend�s company. They devastated several buildings and killed thousands of employees. The motivation seemed to be revenge or sabotage or simply an evil attack. My friend took charge of the situation and stopped the hemorrhaging.

    Over a long and arduous rebuilding process, my friend righted the ship. He rebuilt the buildings, compensated the victim�s families and joined together with other companies in a circle of security. Mostly he was the one man people looked to for courage and hope in the midst of these senseless attacks.

    He started a controversy by insisting that these were not isolated attacks on the company. That in fact a network of terrorists was intent on destroying the company, and its people. My friend launched an aggressive program to seek out and destroy those planning such attacks on our companies and our people.

    "Since that fateful day," said a mutual friend. "We have enjoyed security and safety, and have not been attacked again by these evildoers."

    With all of these accomplishments, and acts of generosity and goodwill, my friend was understandably quite surprised one day when his bosses indicated he may be fired. Shocked would be a better word. You could have knocked him over with a feather.

    But as time went on, and the deadline for renewing or losing his job nears, he did what he normally does in such circumstances�he prayed. He also �entrusted himself to Him who judges justly.� Many think it uncanny that my friend can display such peace and joy in the midst of these struggles. But he knows that God is in control of his circumstances and his job, and that nothing will happen to him outside of the Father�s care.

    �Really, this isn�t my struggle alone,� he said to me one day. �This is OUR struggle, a battle for all believers who want to see right done in this country. I can only do my job as people support me, work to help me keep my job and join in the struggle themselves.�
    �God will allow us to fail if we don�t do His work and remain faithful. But He can also rescue us and have mercy on us if we do the work necessary to glorify Him.�
    �I�m just a man. A man in my last job before retirement. Whether I stay in this job or go isn�t up to me. It�s up to the LORD, and to all of the believers in this land who can step in to help me.�
    �I�ll keep working and praying, right up to the end. America�s future, and the future of our children and grandchildren, and their grandchildren, is up to those of us in this country who will remain faithful to God�s call on our lives.�

    You can do two simple things to help my friend George:
    1. Pray.
    2. Log on to his website to see how you can help him in these final two weeks: http://www.georgewbush.com

    Finally, if you agree to help, please send this email along to 2 or 3 friends, so we can begin praying in earnest right away, and so volunteers can begin pitching in right away to help. God Bless you,

  • ||

    RE: Can You Help a Friend of Mine?

    Tedious.

  • ||

    What I cannot believe is how the Cheneys have reacted to a simple, truthful comment about their daughter. It is obvious that they are ashamed of her sexual orientation, which saddens me to no end. John Kerry remarking on the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter didn't appear to have any ill intent -- and anyone who tries to read that into it (including the Second Family themselves) is guilty of pandering to the idea that gay people are second class citizens and to remark on the fact they are gay is an insult.

  • ||

    What I cannot believe is how the Cheneys have reacted to a simple, truthful comment about their daughter. It is obvious that they are ashamed of her sexual orientation, which saddens me to no end. John Kerry remarking on the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter didn't appear to have any ill intent -- and anyone who tries to read that into it (including the Second Family themselves) is guilty of pandering to the idea that gay people are second class citizens and to remark on the fact they are gay is an insult.

  • ||

    What I cannot believe is how the Cheneys have reacted to a simple, truthful comment about their daughter. It is obvious that they are ashamed of her sexual orientation, which saddens me to no end. John Kerry remarking on the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter didn't appear to have any ill intent -- and anyone who tries to read that into it (including the Second Family themselves) is guilty of pandering to the idea that gay people are second class citizens and to remark on the fact they are gay is an insult.

  • ||

    A lot of extremely sexually repressed and frustrated far right-wingers who belong to the dim-wit versions of Christianity (you know - the ones that think morality begins and ends with sex and has nothing to do with the actual teachings of Jesus on things like greed, lying, or killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in an unnecessary war) have been conducting an intense and long-term campaign to write discrimination into the Constitution against a minority group that comprises about 12% or so of the population. One of their idiotic and biologically disproved contentions to justify such discrimination is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than a natural biological pre-disposition inherent in the human genetic structure. The Republicans have cynically pandered to this group of religious bigots as a way to garner electoral support from people who otherwise might notice how much they're getting screwed by the Republican economic policies that vastly favor the super-rich. So Bush and other Congressional Repugs have, as an election ploy, come out in favor of this Constitutional amendment and are using Kerry's well principled opposition to such an abhorrent perversion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to make points with this sexually-obsessed, dim-witted portion of their right-wing base (many of whom seem to be currently posting messages of "outrage" and "indignation" all over the internet re: 3rd debate). So, in that context, Kerry gets a question in the debate about whether homosexuality is a choice. He answers: Kerry DIRECT quote: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as." For him to point out, as part of his answer, the well-known fact that one of his opponent's daughters is a lesbian is totally appropriate and to the point. The Republicans do have a double standard in regard to what they actually believe and do in private and what they say in public in order to manipulate these poor unfortunate souls who, (having been so fiercely scarred, twisted and repressed sexually when they were children by the previous generation of repressed bigots), are now so obsessed with matters sexual that it outweighs (for them) all of the other vastly more important issues facing the nation, like the economy and deficit, the stupid, illegal, and very costly(in money and lives) war in Iraq, the many looming environmental crises, etc., etc, etc. Bush and Cheney's hypocrisy on this matter deserves to be exposed to the light of public scrutiny just as Kerry tried to do with his reference to Cheney's daughter. All of this "indignation" over his mention of her is just their attempt to spin the public's attention away from their own hypocrisy and double-standards. A good example of which is their total lack of reaction to prominent Rebublican(& scary bigot) Alan Keyes when he accused Ms. Cheney of practicing "selfish hedonism" and said she was a sinner as part of his election campaign against Barack Obama. Where is Mrs. Cheney's (and all the other hypocrits') outrage over that? Shows you just how real their uproar over Kerry's remark is. Spin, spin, spin! By the way, scapegoating and demonizing a large segment of the American (or world) population for political gain is much the same tactic as was used by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals in Germany in the early 1930's. Lets not let America be taken down the same road of bigotry and hatred by these flaming hypocrites and cynical manipulators.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement