Check it out. This is one of the sites Sullivan cites.
It's nothing more than rank homophobia & blatant bigotry.
Sexual preference / inclination? The fact that homosexuality is neither one of those things was the point of Schieffer's question.
This quote, however, takes the dumbass cake:
Would they be so willing to allow their daughters to become the public sexual speculation of news media fodder. Would that be something Mrs. Edwards would
support? Or if one of Kerry's daughter's had an abortion and somehow it became public - just because he's running for office does that make it ok to bring up in public, in debates, or on ABC Radio?What is mind-numbingly stupid about this - is that evidently the Kerrys and the Edwards are blind to the potential pain this causes...
Well, if Kerry's daughter had an abortion, and came out publicly about it; and Kerry was against all abortions, then yes, it would be ok to bring up in public and/or in debates because it reveals a fundamental hypocrisy about the politician's stand.
Where does this blogger get off saying Mary Cheney has in any way been victimized? She is a public figure.
You know who victimized Mary Cheney? It wasn't Kerry or either Edwards.
It was
hypocritical, lesbian-daughter-having Saint Alan of Keyes.
The right victimizes poor Ms. Cheney much worse than any Democrat could or has:
Check it out here. In 2002, Ms. Cheney
publicly joined a Republican gay activist group.
Finally, I love the pitying language:
"VICTIMIZING a woman who obviously struggles with her sexual identity. Will this help them win?"
Well, who said she struggles with anything? Let Ms. Cheney speak for herself. Seems to me that she must be over her struggles if she's a Republican advocate for gay and lesbian issues.
"VICTIMIZING an innocent woman who has chosen not to enter the debate on this?"
Well, she's running her father's campaign, and she's a (broken record time) Republican advocate/activist for gay and lesbian acceptance. (The GOP can tolerate, but not accept).
No comments:
Post a Comment