Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CHENEY SIS JUMPS INTO LESBIAN FRAY
New York Post ^ | October 17, 2004 | STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN

Posted on 10/17/2004 2:24:15 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

October 17, 2004 -- Add Mary Cheney's sister's name to a growing list of Cheney family members angry with Sen. John Kerry for bringing up Mary and her sexuality at last week's debate in Tempe, Ariz. Appearing on "Good Morning America" alongside first-daughter hopeful Vanessa Kerry, Liz Cheney — a married mother of four — said an apology from the Democratic nominee "would be appropriate."

But Kerry's daughter defended her dad's comments and noted that Mary Cheney's sexual preference is a matter of record.

"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family," the younger Kerry said, adding that his comments echoed what Sen. John Edwards said to Cheney himself at the vice-presidential debate. "But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: debate; kerry; lizcheney; marycheney; vanessakerry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

1 posted on 10/17/2004 2:24:15 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What an unfortunate headline.


2 posted on 10/17/2004 2:25:49 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the Rats in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

What does being part of a campaign have to do with someone waving your sexuality around like a bloody flag?


3 posted on 10/17/2004 2:25:55 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth
"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family,"

Lie!

4 posted on 10/17/2004 2:26:45 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

I guess talking about your pitiful breasts and horrid horse face isn't over the top then is it Vanessa? Ugly, skanky, leeching hag that you are.


5 posted on 10/17/2004 2:27:25 AM PDT by LiberalBassTurds (Democrats: The blind leading the stupid enabling the evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

...as I posted on another thread...

It's about free will. God gave us free will, Kerry trod all over that in Mary Cheney's case. If she had wanted the issue made public, on a worldwide stage, it was her choice to do so, not Mr. Kerry's and not Mr. Edwards'. This is why the right to privacy was placed in our Bill of Rights, and considered as so important by the Founding Fathers of this nation. If God gave us free will, we have no right to mess with any person's free will...or privacy... in such a fashion. John-John not only violated her God-given rights, they violated her Constituional rights.

The crassnes of the act of doing such a thing is very telling on it's own. It reveals the characters of the candidates and of their politics. Those politics apparently care little for other's privacy, nor for The Constituion.


6 posted on 10/17/2004 2:28:04 AM PDT by wrbones (Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The Kerry's continue to prove themselves to be dire lowlifes.


7 posted on 10/17/2004 2:29:42 AM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Kerry fled while good men bled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds

This has noting to do with them, this has everything to do with Kerry's character.


8 posted on 10/17/2004 2:29:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wrbones

Kerry stepped on a private citizen for power.

Kerry stepped on Vietnam vets for power.

Kerry can not be allowed to have power.


9 posted on 10/17/2004 2:31:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
The Kerrys and Edwards are crass opportunists.
10 posted on 10/17/2004 2:32:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

No doubt!


11 posted on 10/17/2004 2:32:55 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

exactly.

It has been statements like that about Ms. Cheney that gets Mr. Bush to lookin' at him funny. My mouth dropped open more than a few times when I was watching the debates.

What Kerry says and does is so often wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin!


12 posted on 10/17/2004 2:37:08 AM PDT by wrbones (Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wrbones

Kerry never met a lie he couldn't speak.

Kerry never met a truth he couldn't spin.


13 posted on 10/17/2004 2:40:20 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

"Cheney Sis Jumps Into Lesbian Fray"

When I first saw headline, I read the last word as Faye Wrey. Remembering her agent promised her "the tallest, darkest movie star in all Hollywood".

In related news, Senator John Kerry has decided the use the FreeRepublic spelling of his name sKerry. In a surprise announcment, citing low poll numbers, Senator sKerry has dumped John Edwards as his running mate, and tapped Presidential brother Neil Bush as his running mate, reminiscent of Ronald Reagan.

Can anyone make a bumper sticker of this ticket?


14 posted on 10/17/2004 2:46:15 AM PDT by bIlluminati (If guns are outlawed, can we use tanks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Yes, what an unfortunate headline. I feel like I've reached my saturation point for Liberals, Democrats and spoiled candidates and their children. What Kerry did was so far from Respectful, loving or appropriate it boggles the mind and itches the hand to slap some sense into them.
AAARRRGGGHHHH! I'm speechless in the presence of such disrespectful and egomanaical posturing.
Dee
15 posted on 10/17/2004 3:00:41 AM PDT by WifeMotherDaughterSister (Cramming for the Global Test....is it multiple choice or essay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth
What an unfortunate headline

It could have been worse. At least it didn't say
CHENEY SIS DIVES INTO LESBIAN FRAY
16 posted on 10/17/2004 3:03:26 AM PDT by counterpunch (The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection - www.counterpunch.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wrbones
This is why the right to privacy was placed in our Bill of Rights,

????

17 posted on 10/17/2004 3:06:47 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

do you REALLY think that was an accident?


18 posted on 10/17/2004 3:09:13 AM PDT by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family," the younger Kerry said, . . .

No. The "strong family" came up when he was trying to cover his tracks.

. . . adding that his comments echoed what Sen. John Edwards said to Cheney himself at the vice-presidential debate.

And this makes it better HOW?

"But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

Does this mean that every high school kid or housewife stuffing envelopes for a candidate becomes "fair game" too?

19 posted on 10/17/2004 3:10:13 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz

The minute you become a public figure, you give up those rights. Forever. After that, you're at the tender mercy of the press and political opposition.


20 posted on 10/17/2004 3:11:15 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Amendment four and amendment nine...in my opinion...

"secure in their persons"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and "denying or disparaging" other rights to be retained...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article IV
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Not being a constitutional scholar, this is just my opinion.


21 posted on 10/17/2004 3:17:36 AM PDT by wrbones (Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wrbones
"This is why the right to privacy was placed in our Bill of Rights . . ."

I must have missed that one. Which one was it?

22 posted on 10/17/2004 3:20:16 AM PDT by Neanderthal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"My father's point was the concept was celebrating a strong family."

And here is the young Miss Kerry displaying some of those strong family values that her father taught her.

--Boot Hill

23 posted on 10/17/2004 3:21:38 AM PDT by Boot Hill (Candy-gram for Osama bin Mongo, candy-gram for Osama bin Mongo!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wrbones

William Sidis Versus The New Yorker magazine. He was a child prodigy who was interviewed when a youngster. As a grown man, he was "interviewed" without his consent, sued the magazine and lost the case.

Sidis vs. F-R Pub. Corp

Federal Reporter, 1941, #113, 807-811




In a 5 - 4 opinion, hence by the vote of a single

Justice, the US Supreme Court decided that fame

cast upon one's shoulders the burden of losing

one's rights of privacy. Chief Justice Brandeis, the

deciding vote, said The New Yorker article was,

"...merciless in its dissection of intimate details

of its subject's life," and further admitted that

ALL have the "... right to be protected from

the prying of the press..." But he proceeded to

deny Sidis that right because he was a public

figure! This case set the precedent which has

come up time and again in celebrity libel cases

against the press.


24 posted on 10/17/2004 3:22:16 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: durasell
You don't give them up. They are taken from you.

The press, as an entertainment industry, has walked all over Freedom of Speech in such fashion as to justify their abuse of other's rights.

This is why we are inundated with opinions instead of news, and yellow journalism instead of integrity and honest reporting of the facts of matters.

We must not forget that any and all parts of the media are BIG business. Their job is to make money, not report the news. Their concern is the bottom line, not the truth.

Rights and freedoms are not privileges, they are responsibilities. Any who uses them irresponsibly endanger the freedom of all.

That lack of responsibility and integrity is why the MSM is beginning to be supplanted by the new media.

Just my opinion...
25 posted on 10/17/2004 3:25:35 AM PDT by wrbones (Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: durasell

I stand by what I said. You don't give up these rights. They are taken from you.


26 posted on 10/17/2004 3:26:55 AM PDT by wrbones (Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wrbones

If you're a celebrity, you have willingly given up the right to reasonable privacy in exchange for being a celebrity. If you're Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts, this can be a drag. However, if you're just a guy walking around leading his/her life, then you have every right to expect your privacy and should fight to maintain it.


27 posted on 10/17/2004 3:31:04 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: durasell

I assume you're speaking in terms of practice, especially under current American caselaw. Lots of things are quite wrong, even if perfectly legal.


28 posted on 10/17/2004 3:36:43 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Well, it's still my opinion. It's still my thinkin' on the matter. I still have the right to that.

By the use of Supreme Court Justice's decisions as a precedent fer things, I reckon abortion is ok... Constitutionally speakin', that is...outlawin' hard currency... just all sorts of interestin' things to think about here...

You've helped to take a lookit things in a way I hadn't really looked hard at before. I thank ya fer that. Real interestin' stuff...

...real interestin'...


29 posted on 10/17/2004 3:38:07 AM PDT by wrbones (Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Yeah, that's just the legal angle. It's upheld every so often when a celeb gets upset about images in the press.

And yes, a lot of things are wrong and legal at the same time. Particularly wrong is the burden of celebrity that falls on the children of the rich/powerful/famous etc.


30 posted on 10/17/2004 3:41:48 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wrbones

Check out William Sidis' life story. There are a couple of websites devoted to it. Fascinating stuff.

Also, a photog for a tabloid once told me, "That at any given time there are fewer than 200 people whose images can sell magazines or newspapers." I found it to be a fascinating statement.


31 posted on 10/17/2004 3:45:29 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: durasell
I understand British libel law is quite different and that's the reason Kitty Kelly didn't publish her book on the Royals in England.

Apart from the fact that he was bringing up her "gayness," though, is the sheer effrontery of saying of someone he doesn't seem to know personally "If you asked Dick Cheney's daughter . . . she would tell you . . . ." IMO, if you were crude enough to ask, she would probably (and rightly) tell you to mind your own business.

32 posted on 10/17/2004 3:48:26 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: maryz
"But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

O.K. - try this on for size Kerry girls. Your father had his marriage to your mother annulled - after you were born. So that makes you basically "born out of wedlock" and as such deserve the label of "bastards". Shall we talk about that on national TV? How does that label "make you feel" girls? Is your family "ashamed" of you? Are you "ashamed" of yourself?

33 posted on 10/17/2004 3:49:05 AM PDT by Elkiejg (O.K., I'll say it...... Democrats ARE UNPATRIOTIC!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill

Putting the obvious horrors aside, the white BVDs were a real fashion faux pas.


34 posted on 10/17/2004 3:50:21 AM PDT by Salamander (Pirates of the Appalachians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Look, I live in NYC. I have a lot of gay friends, business associates, etc. If I presumed to speak for any of them - say while out having a drink, much less in a public forum, they'd drag me over the coals without mercy. Likewise, it is considered the height of bad taste to ask someone if they're gay. It really is a personal matter.

The fact that some gay people are applauding Kerry has nothing to do with their personal feelings on the subject and everything to do with their partisan feelings about politics.


35 posted on 10/17/2004 3:54:36 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

That picture is an old paparazzi trick. They open the flash all the way and set a particular exposure. People in Hollywood have learned to counter it via various methods. Without the camera's flash, that dress would appear opaque.


36 posted on 10/17/2004 3:57:51 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: durasell

She should've countered it with a bra, then...;))


37 posted on 10/17/2004 4:06:14 AM PDT by Salamander (Pirates of the Appalachians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"But when you choose to be part of a campaign, you choose to make yourself public."

Must be the Kerry daughter who wore the see-through dress without underwear?

38 posted on 10/17/2004 4:09:13 AM PDT by lonestar (Me, too!--Weinie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

I believe that actresses walking the red carpet have either flesh toned prosthetics and/or there's a material that is sewn into the lining of the dress.


39 posted on 10/17/2004 4:10:11 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Has Christopher Reeve called Kerry since he died?--to tell him he has to vote absentee?


40 posted on 10/17/2004 4:12:40 AM PDT by lonestar (Me, too!--Weinie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: durasell

If she had underwear on, as most of us women do as well as a more opaque material UNDER the organza, crepe, or whatever that dress material was, then it wouldn't matter what "setting" the flash was on the camera. Her breasts, nipples and other parts of her anatomy wouldn't be hanging around for the "camera trick" to be successful.

She doesn't have that good a body in the first place, and whoever made the dress could also get a dose of decency.
Trying to see who can be the most depraved seems to be the tagline of the entire Democrat group.

sKerry should be ashamed for his multiple positions on the topic of when SEX and who is doing it with whom is important. When Clinton was entertaining Lewinsky more often than he was meeting with the CIA, all the Dems claimed it was "personal" what he did with his sex life, no matter that it was inside the Oval office. Now it is "fair game" to attack Mary Cheney, who is working behind the scenes on her Dad's campaign.

The candidates of the Demorat party are both worms. Neither belongs in any position of power. Certainly not in the USA. WE DESERVE BETTER.


41 posted on 10/17/2004 4:16:11 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

What saddens me most is what is considered "fair game" these days. But I may just be old and "out of it."


42 posted on 10/17/2004 4:22:32 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: durasell

A lot of sheer garments have flesh-toned thin "sheaths" sewn into them to give the illusion of transparency without the possibility of "over exposure".
It's very commmon with lace, as well.


43 posted on 10/17/2004 4:24:33 AM PDT by Salamander (Pirates of the Appalachians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Yeah, I'd agree with that. But the entire women's fashion industry strikes me as a monumental scam, so I can see even expensive designers skimping on a lining.

Anyway, it's been really pleasant chatting with you all. I have to get back to work. Thanks!


44 posted on 10/17/2004 4:28:44 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: durasell

I shop at Wal*Mart so "fashion" is a bit of a moot point with me.....:))

Have a good one!


45 posted on 10/17/2004 4:33:42 AM PDT by Salamander (Pirates of the Appalachians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds

pitiful breasts and horrid horse face isn't over the top then is it Vanessa?

HOOOHAA!!


46 posted on 10/17/2004 4:36:59 AM PDT by UltraKonservativen (( YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Does this mean that every high school kid or housewife stuffing envelopes for a candidate becomes "fair game" too?

How about the Edwards parading their young children around as props?

47 posted on 10/17/2004 4:40:10 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Is this the Kerry daughter that runs around in see-through clothing, and/or the one that has had an abortion?


48 posted on 10/17/2004 4:42:22 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
 
DEBATE 3: JOHN KERRY OUTS JOHN KERRY
"THIS IS NOT A GOOD MAN"


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004


49 posted on 10/17/2004 4:57:39 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
What does being part of a campaign have to do with someone waving your sexuality around like a bloody flag?

What it has to do with, is trying to tie a homosexual person to every non-homosexual in the country, to blackmail non-homosexuals emotionally into turning their backs on sexual morality in order to protect the homosexual person in the family -- and the family.

It's well known, for example, that social conservatism found its first strong articulation in the speeches of Barry Goldwater, when he ran for president in 1964, particularly from one speech he gave about three months before the nominating convention in the Cow Palace in San Francisco. Later on, one of Barry's family "came out", whereafter he took a libertarian stand on homosexuality, modifying his views to protect a family member. He did the same thing on abortion, because one of the women in his immediate family had had one. Late in life, his views on both subjects became very well known because of the activities of liberal (gay) polemicists.

A precis article on Goldwater's views was published by U.S. News & World Report in 1998:

U.S. News & World Report
June 8, 1998
SECTION: U.S. NEWS; Pg. 12
HEADLINE: Mr. Right
BYLINE: By Michael J. Gerson; Mike Tharp
HIGHLIGHT:
Barry Goldwater created, yet stood apart from, modern conservatism
BODY:
....It was during the 1980s and 1990s that Goldwater developed a reputation for apostasy. He defended legal abortion and homosexual rights and criticized the religious right, famously arguing that Jerry Falwell deserved "a swift kick in the ass." Some conservatives felt betrayed, while liberals applauded. But many of his oldest associates discerned no change at all, seeing a culmination of the frontier libertarianism on which he was raised--a visceral opposition to government's poaching beyond the fence of privacy. Charles Lichenstein, the research director for his presidential campaign, summarizes the Goldwater philosophy vividly: "If I want to go to hell, I want to go to hell in my own way." Goldwater's views were never religiously rooted, and his resentment of moralism was based, in part, on family experience. His first wife helped found Planned Parenthood in Arizona. His daughter had an illegal abortion in the mid-1950s. A grandson is gay and HIV-positive. "I know for a fact," says Lichenstein, "that his views against outlawing abortion were exactly the same in '64 as in the '70s and '80s. But it wasn't an issue then."...

Gays have been expressing an acute interest in using Mary Cheney in precisely this way, to attack the Cheneys and the Bush Administration on issues of interest to gay NGO's ever since Cheney became the likely vice-presidential nominee. Here is an excerpt from a gay e-zine article that ran in 2000; bad guys' names are bolded:

One gay Republican who's certainly inside is vice-presidential nominee Dick Cheney's daughter Mary.

She attended the convention and appeared on stage with the candidates' families following Bush's acceptance speech the final evening. It was not immediately clear if her life partner, Heather Poe, was present. Mary Cheney declined all requests for interviews.

On the convention's final day, there were a smattering of unconfirmed reports that Mary Cheney will formally join the Cheney campaign staff.

"We understand they [Dick and Mary Cheney] love each other very much," said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) spokesman David Smith. "She often times goes on trips with him and they're very close. Both her parents have known that she's gay since the early 90s. She lives with her partner and I understand her and her partner go over to the home quite often, they get along as a family. The parents are comfortable with it and so is she.

"The crux of it is, it's going to focus attention on Bush's anti- gay policy positions, and Cheney is going to look quite mean if he comes out and says: 'Yeah, I support a law that bans my daughter from adopting a child. I don't support a law that would protect my daughter from discrimination,'" Smith said.

HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch added: "Mary Cheney is a bright and articulate woman. She is highly impressive. The issue will be whether she is locked away in a vault in terms of her public-policy positions that are well-known."

Until recently, Cheney worked for the Coors brewery as the head of its gay and lesbian outreach efforts. "I talked to her," Birch said. "I told her we wanted to be supportive and that I felt that merely directing all inquiries to the campaign was not going to work for very long because this is a radar-jamming moment where with someone with a record like Dick Cheney's, it is remarkable and interesting that he has such a dynamic [euphemism for "gay"] daughter. She cut her teeth on advocating for gay Americans as consumers. She's a quasi-public figure. The press will want to write about that."

Dick Cheney's record on gay issues includes supporting the military gay ban and voting against the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1988 as a congressman. George W. Bush is on record opposing job protections for gay people and gay adoption. He scuttled hate-crime legislation in Texas and has vowed to abolish the position of White House liaison to the gay community.

In an interview with journalist Cokie Roberts, Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, seemingly attempted to shove Mary back in the closet. When Roberts said Mary is an open lesbian, Lynne shot back: "Mary has never declared such a thing. I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters. I love them very much. They are bright; they are hard-working; they are decent. And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I'm surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program."

But Mary has declared such a thing, repeatedly. For instance, she told Girlfriends magazine, "The reason I came to work here [at Coors] is because I knew several other lesbians who were very happy here."

Strategist [Mary] Matalin acknowledged Mary Cheney's sexual orientation and told this reporter: "Mary Cheney knows how to speak knowledgeably, reasonably, calmly and confidently on gay issues and [she] has. I hope she does. I don't know what her demands for privacy will be." [Emphasis added]


Source: "DID THE GOP REACH OUT TO GAYS?", by Rex Wockner [story originally filed Aug. 5, 2000], published online by The Wockner Wire column at 365Gay.com.
Archive link: http://members.aol.com/wockner/gop.html

The significance of this excerpt is to show the propaganda interest of the Human Rights Campaign in particular (the Log Cabin Republicans have recently distanced themselves from the HRC on "outing" Mary Cheney for political mileage), that it goes back four years, and the reference by slugtrail generator Elizabeth Birch to "jamming".

"Jamming" is a term also used by homosexual archpropagandists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (the pseudonymous "Erastes Pill") in "Overhauling Straight America", the Washington, DC Guide article that they later rewrote into After the Ball. "Jamming" refers to a specific propaganda technique of great value, the purpose of which is (utterly without reference to merit or truth) to make people defensive, uncertain, and nervous about their moral values and opinions. It's a form of moral and emotional blackmail that feeds back negative judgments of the targets' own self-worth, based on their opinions -- in order to induce them to jettison their opinions. "Jamming" has nothing to do with "the truth", but is an open, polemical attack on a person or persons that is comparable to mugging rather than to honest discussion or debate. And it is right at the top of Elizabeth Birch's agenda.

50 posted on 10/17/2004 5:11:30 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson