Month: October 2004

John Kerry made a gratuitous mentioned of Mary Cheney’s life-style during the last presidential debate. Not only did he use her as a political tool, he decided to speak for her as well:

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.

John Kerry doesn’t address exactly how he knows what she would say. He assumes that all gay and lesbian people claim they are born that way. Without speaking to Mary Cheney on the issue, he is an authority on the reasons for her sexual orientation.

So where is NOW? Shouldn’t they be offended that a candidate for the highest office in the land decides to speak for a woman without first consulting with her on her own opinion?

How about PFLAG or other activist organizations for homosexuals? Do they want straight people telling homosexuals what they think? If you listen for their protests, you’ll only hear crickets.

Instead of try to calm the controversy, they fan the flames. Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill calls Mary Cheney “fair game.” That is, the Democrats will use her personal life to their advantage. Elizabeth Edwards made the gaffe of judging Dick and Lynne Cheney’s relationship with their daughter by claiming the felt a “certain degree of shame” about her. Her reasoning seems to be they’re Republicans. They obviously don’t love their gay daughter.

What a gift from the Democrats. Voters know that parents – Republican or Democrat – love their children. To use a political opponents’ children against them is beyond the rules of decency. There will be a price to pay for doing it.

Here is the t-shirt of the day (nominated by Beth). You can even buy it here. Support your favorite French politician.

 

I didn’t get to see the presidential debate last night, so I had to rely on media reaction. Most of the opinion writers say President Bush won the debate. Since I read a lot of conservative writers, I really wasn’t convinced until I found reaction from (left leaning)Slate.

When their writer admits President Bush won, it must have been a clear victory.

I think the most damaging answer from Kerry was when he showed he has no convictions and explained how religious convictions are irrelevant. He was asked for assurance that tax dollars would not fund abortion. His reply:

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.

So, because his belief is supposedly based on his religious views, he refuses to take action to support that belief. In that case, I have to say he really doesn’t have the beliefs he claims to hold.

What is most alarming is that this candidate for President is saying it is wrong for people with religious convictions to support public policies that support their religious beliefs. He thinks the ethical position is for religious people to support policies that do the opposite of what they believe. In this case, religious people should support laws that promote abortion.

Never mind that non-religious people are forcing their views on us with their public policy. John Kerry believes that is OK because it is supposedly not religious. So much for Freedom of religion.

Last night in the Presidential debate John Kerry was asked what the biggest security threat is. He answered nuclear proliferation.

Yeah, that is a concern. His answer to get Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons? Give them nuclear fuel as long as they promise not to develop bombs with it and let inspectors in. What the hell?

UN inspectors didn’t work in Iraq, they didn’t work in Korea, and empty promises from mad Islamic clerics will surely keep the world safe.

Appeasement is not a security policy. It didn’t work for Rome. In fact, it got Rome sacked. It won’t work now either. Especially when appeasing an enemy involves giving them the tools to destroy us.