Cheneys upset about Kerry’s reference to their gay daughter.

This CNN article describes how upset the Cheneys got at the fact that Kerry used their gay daughter Mary as an example of his belief that gay people are born that way. 

They’re treating it as a nasty dig, which it is—only if you think being gay is a bad thing.  It’s only underhanded if you’re calling attention to something they ought to be ashamed of.  It’s only unfair if calling attention to Cheney’s personal hypocrisy is out of bounds.

Should Kerry have done it?  I don’t see why not.  If you’re going to point out that someone is gay in a national debate, you just KNOW that poor person is going to be deluged with hate mail and threats from the right wing idiots afterwards.  But Mary Cheney’s a pretty good choice:  after all, who’s going to fuck with Dick Cheney’s daughter?  Him being such a bad-ass and all.  If anyone’s protected, she is.

And it’s sad that she has to be protected from the bigoted masses in her father’s own party.  If the Vice President doesn’t want his family to be fair game for discussion as an example (she’s working on his campaign, after all), maybe he shouldn’t have picked the party most likely to lynch them.  But then again, Cheney’s not known for sympathy or empathy.  He probably just didn’t count on needing to ask for it himself as a post-debate spin tactic.

 

 

 

Bush’s own hometown newspaper endorses Kerry.

The Lone Star Iconoclast of Crawford, Texas has come out endorsing Kerry, according to Kerry’s website.  They sound just a bit disappointed in their homie:

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

  * Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
  * Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
  * Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
  * Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
  * Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
  * Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
  * Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

When you put it that way, it doesn’t sound that attractive, does it?

The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

And it looks like they’re not that keen on having him in town:

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.

Do you suppose the citizens of Crawford would stand out in front of the ranch with signs saying, “GET BACK TO WORK”?