Great analasys of the non-debates that we often sit through. I think it would be just as wise and helpful to have the candidates armwrestle.

Couple points regarding Mary Cheney:

(1) It didn't bother me when Edwards brought it up in the debate with Cheney... the way he did it seemed genuine... and because he did to Cheney's face, it didn't seem so, ummm.. backhanded.
I admit I cringed when Kerry brought her up though. I really think he should have left that out.

(2) That said... she is fair game BECAUSE she is helping to run the campaign. In my opinion, if you overtly join the campaign effort, then you open yourself up to public questioning...
If she was not on the campaign team, then I think her privacy should have been respected...

(3) She is openly gay... so there was no "invasion of privacy" issue, in that sense.

(4) Why is it relevant? Many conservatives push this line that homosexuality is a "choice", or that it has something to do with bad influences/bad upbringing, or that it has to do with sexual abuse at a young age, etc... and that only if we publically push "traditional values" then homosexuality will just evaporate...
Well... if the Cheneys support such "traditional values" and raised their children "fearing God", then you have to explain why Mary Cheney still ended up gay... I have a gut feeling that Dick and Lynne Cheney probably believe their daughter was "born gay", though they could probably never openly admit to that... as I said, that is just my suspicion... and if you admit that the trait of homosexuality is not a choice (though whether to accept it or not is still a choice), then it matters how you will treat them in civil society... I don't care what any one denomination thinks of the issue, all I care about is what civil, secular society does.

Just my 2 cents.

On Perrot, i beleive you were right. I voted for Perrot in Texas knowing it wouldn't hurt Bush. I think if objective people went back to those debates, wrote down his issues and ideas, then look at what the Republicans in Congress, and even Clinton did, they did what Perrot brought to the front. Perrot Setthe agenda in the 1992 election. Many of the items in the "Contact for America", were all Ross Perrot. As Governor of Texas, Bush used Perrot and some of his ideas to reform education.

Perrot was an independent, they don't have anyone in office to claim credit!

By the way, Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, filed a complaint with the IRS against the black church where they endorsed Kerry and where he appeared with Jesse Jackson and Sharpton.

You may disagree with Rev. Lynn, but at least he is consistent and goes after both the left and the right.

My personal feeling is that churches should give up their tax-free status, and then they would be free to preach and endorse any candidate they want.

I'm ashamed as a Republican to admit it, but Iheard a theory I agree with today about why Kerry mentioned her. Republicans are using mailers in some areas to play on the gay haters fears and get votes. SO I think Kerry is trying to soften the edge on some of that.

I think the most curious Kerry commentwas the Integrity, Integrity, Integrity, story of Kerry and his dying mother. One would think that a mother would not have to remind her Senator son about integrity at that stage in his life. And that he felt the need totell that "story", is very telling.

I do not agree that Mary Cheney is "fair game". She is a private citizen. IF anybody who works with a campaign is fair game, why couldn't he name a campaign worker of HIS that is gay? And all Kerry did was use her to avoid answering the question, which was: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? What does she have to do with that question? NOTHING. Kerry needs to learn how to answer the question he is asked. I could see if he knew Mary Cheney, was friends with her, etc. But none of those things apply. It's called common decency, and Kerry has shown he has no clue what that is.

As far as the vice-president and his wife, they do NOT have to explain how their daughter "ended up" gay. All parents can do is raise their children the best way they know how. What they do when they become adults is - dare I say it?- their CHOICE. Period.

I think it is very telling that blacks are the only "ethnic minority" whose vote is so heavily tilted to one side.

Jewish voters vote Democratic 80-85% of the time. Are they an "ethnic minority" or does the use of the phrase, automatically discount them, and thus stack the deck?

Next, Cuban Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Republican. Does that count?

Next, "other Hispanics" lean heavily Democratic. Does that count?

Next, I wonder if the same hand wringing occurred when Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican.

Finally, I'll ask this again. Why is it that Blacks are blamed for the success of the Southern Strategy?

I wonder how many Orthodox Jewish synagogues Kerry and company are going to visit to urge the congregants (with their Rabbi chiming in) not to allow the gay marriage issue to influence their vote?
Just curious.

Rikki...

Sorry, but Mary Cheney is not a "private citizen" on this issue... she is a senior campaign official... but more importantly,
prior to this capaign, she was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, and gave frequent PUBLIC speeches where she said:
"We can make sexual orientation a nonissue for the Republican Party, and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans."

If you give public speeches and help to run a campaign, you are a fair target. This is a GROWN woman who can defend herself... she isn't a defenseless child.

jab, gotta disagree with you on this one.

It isn't a question of being a private citizen: you have to ask yourself: just why are Kerry/Edwards focusing on someone who is -frankly- very peripheral to the current administration? This has nothing to do with the number of public speeches she's made, and everything to do with her familial relations.

Very simply, KEdwards keep bringing Mary Cheney up because she's Dick Cheney's daughter. End of freakin' story. The reason why they do so? Because they're trying to embarass Bush/Cheney by insinuating some sort of GOP hypocrisy.

The problem is that this approach will backfire, simply because conservatives don't think that way. They'll see it as an attack on family.

Which says something about KEdwards...

I like what Dean had to say about this not too long ago.

Ambra: if it makes you feel any better, I voted for Perot in '96 myself. :) While I wasn't happy with Clinton, I wasn't going to vote for Bob Dole just because it was "his turn." I need a better reason for that to cast my vote, which is why I'd make a lousy Democrat. Voting for someone because they're "notBush" would stick in my craw. Heck, that's whey I turned Senator Dole down, because in many ways all he was, was "notClinton."

Actually, Jews vote Democratic 70% to 85% of the time, not 80-85%. There's more fluctuation than with the black vote. However, for the most part DarkStar's point remains valid on this particular stat. Cuban-Americans vote 70-30 for Republicans. Mexican-Americans vote 65-35 for Democrats.

However, I ain't concerned with other groups but with black folks. Putting 90% of our eggs in one basket is politically unsavvy. One side can take you for granted, and the other side can ignore you. And yes, this issue was brought up when blacks (those who were allowed to vote) voted overwhelmingly Republican (e.g., look at Carter G. Woodson discusses it in The Miseducation of the Negro). Blacks gained the most when we swung vote, during the 1940s to 1960s.

JThomas: Agreed!

Darkstar: My point was, does any other racial, cultural, ethnic group put 90% of their votes into one side of the political spectrum? If so, then I'll shut up. However, I don't think it's particularly serving us well.

What do you mean by Southern strateggy?

Vanyogan: The "integrity, integrity, integriy" line and the bit about his mother was kinda odd when the question was about wives was it not?

Jab: I think others have said sufficiently what I would say.

seal-lover: You're right. What you said would NEVER happen.

Rikki: To your point I'd add that many people, Liberals especially are bent on "dispoving" those against the homosexual lifestyle by any means necessary. It's so blatantly obvious. Mary Cheney is a grown woman responsible for her actions.

Casey: You're right about the Mary Cheney comments. It's an attempt to discredit the GOP and I think it stinks. Ditto with Alan Keyes. Dangit, I keep meaning to talk about that.

However, I ain't concerned with other groups but with black folks.

As long as similar things happen with other groups, I'm not going to allow people, Black or white, to "beat up" on the Black community.

Putting 90% of our eggs in one basket is politically unsavvy.

True, but my point above still stands.

And yes, this issue was brought up when blacks (those who were allowed to vote) voted overwhelmingly Republican (e.g., look at Carter G. Woodson discusses it in The Miseducation of the Negro).

You are right about it being mentioned. I forgot about that one.

However, I don't think it's particularly serving us well.

I agree with that. But I still dispute molotov's figures about the Jewish vote. I still hear it's 80-85%, with current polls indicating 70-75% in Bush's favor.

What do you mean by Southern strateggy?

The short version is the Republican strategy of ignoring Black voters to go after the white southern voter.

Many Democrat "Dixiecrats" left the Democrat party and went to the Republican party because of the support of The Civil Rights Act by LBJ. While there were Democrat segregationists who fought it, he stood for it and signed the bill. It fractured the party.

So, my question means, if the Republicans had a political strategy of ignorning Black voters (Nixon had 20% of the Black vote), then why blame Black voters for not voting Republican?

I'm just wondering when the DNC is gonna slap Kerry around for saying Homosexuality was a choice. :O