It takes a certain level of gall to talk about shame when you are married to a personal injury lawyer and a lawyer yourself! She goes to bed at night next to a man who wins a multi million dollar settlement and then takes 40% off the top with a smile.

"Here you go, this should help you with your chronically ill and permanently damaged child, I'll talk to you soon! I have an make a tee time in 20 minutes."

It takes a special kind of human to be able to take money from people like that. Talk about shame.

When you're a rich, condescending wife of a lawyer, what else are you to do? The fact that Elizabeth Edwards thinks she knows more about what a parent of gay children should think/say/feel than the parent themselves says it all.

And isn't that the summation of the Dems? We know better than you, little people. Now just get out of our way and let us do our business of taking your money which is rightfully ours...

fat cunt

Haha, was Edward's wife that fat when he married her? She looks like some kind of moose.

The Edwards' are our Tom and Daisy Buchanan.

I can almost hear the "outrage" from the other side, were the shoe on the other foot. We would be ridiculed as insensitive, gay bashing homomphobes. But since it was a liberal, that's okey dokey.

She just needs to shut her yap. I can't believe that this issue is a winner for the Dems, yet they just keep chasing it.

If history is any judge, look for Teresa Heinz to say something stupid about this in the next few days.

I just wanna know one thing. Where's Hoke and how come I'm not IP banned yet? Ok, that's two things.

And Ace, you are so off base on Miami Vice. Everyone knows that ALF was the best show ever on tv.....

The still trying to be ip banned midaz

You never go after the kids. NEVER.

Her stupidity has little to do with the width of her ass. However, in her defense I read that her weight problem started sometime after the death of her son and the subsequent late life birth of their two younger children.

She is still a stupid bitch, but fat has nothing to do with it. Stephanie Cutter is a very attractive fucking idiot. No matter how pretty she is she is still an idiot.

After both candidates brought it up and Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's titular campaign head said Mary Cheney's gayness is "fair game". Now Edward's smarmy wife gets into it. As ACE correctly observed, dragging a candidates family member into the campaign when they are not actively involved is poor form, especially if they live in glass houses.

How would Edwards feel if Cheney brought up the importance of regular exercise and proper eating in maintaining good health and fighting the obesity epidemic - then turned to Edwards and said; "An epidemic you are well acquainted with, and I'm sure your wife agrees with my observations".

Edwards would have not liked that one bit.

10/14/04

Ever had to be around some one who smelled bad, but it would be impolite to notice it or comment? That must be how ‘Democrats” feel about John Edwards, John Kerry, and now Lynn Edwards, who have all shamed themselves by trying to use the sexual orientation of Mary Cheney for their own political gain. When attempting to defend the actions of their candidates and spouses, campaign officials sound mean spirited, hard nosed, and insensitive (which they are). The life situation of the Cheney family is considered nothing more than a political resource to be exploited, no matter the pain it causes. When their own bad behavior is pointed out, they defend it by criticizing the family as being ashamed of Mary. Does Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Heinz-Kerry go around bragging about their heterosexual daughters? If not, they must be ashamed of the girls sexual orientation. Do the Edwards talk about the sexuality of their children? If not, they must be ashamed. Gay people should take a good look at this crude and callous behavior. You are only a political resource to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. They don’t care about your lives or your feelings. What makes you think that they care about your future or your well being?

Lonnie Kendall

The wedding photo for the Edwards' shows her to be quite attractive, but with those "warning" upper arms. I can't seem to find it anymore.

It would be simply mean-spirited, and I think wrong, to say Ann Coulter meant Mrs. Edwards when she wrote "the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention." Because near as I can tell, she wears a lot of makeup.

But, of course, I wouldn't want to get into the personal lives of the candidates' families.

Because, as Sonny says, "People in stucco houses shouldn't throw quiche."

I wonder how "sensitive" it would be if President Bush wondered aloud at the mistakes the Edwards made in allowing their 16 year old son, Wade, to be driving a jeep in unsafe conditions which ultimately resulted in said jeep getting swept off the road, flipping a few times, and then ending up in flames as a way to obliquely attack John Edwards.

Yes. I'm sure the Edwards family would have no problem with that.

So rude, so arrogant - nothing makes any parent more annoyed than hearing someone else criticize their relationship with their own child.

So why are the Dems doing it?

1. Just to annoy ('harmless' fun for trolls)

2. Cast a shadow over Bush/Cheney in the minds of traditional Christians.

3. Coded appeal to blacks (who are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage) reminding them that there is a gay person in the Bush/Cheney family, while at the same time distracting them from the fact that the overwhelming majority of the rest of the Democrats' base is pro-gay marriage.

Ace:

Don't you think Elizabeth Edwards bears a certain resemblance to Chris Penn's character "Switek" on Miami Vice? Or was he "Zito"?

I mean, given the theme of the blog this week, we ought to be able to compare them side by side. thereby killing two birds with one stone.

Two big, tubby birds.

Damn...and I thought I would never miss the Clintons!

We have a trifecta going now...Little John, Big (height-wise) John and Mrs. Little John. I can't wait for Kerry's "fine catch" to spout off!

That wedding photo

Switek

Mrs. Edwards.

http://a5.cpimg.com/image/83/25/29681795-b2e7-0168010E-.jpg

It's Grimace!

That's the scary part, Tuh-Ray-Saw is the only to not comment yet.... yikes!

Stupid no linky technologies!

Mrs. Edwards

I know it makes me a bad person, but the first thing I thought when I saw her was, "He must cheat on her like crazy."

Chris Norton (aka P. Hendrie) would describe Mrs. Edwards as a "Butter Hog".

Apologies: Switek was played by Michael Talbott, who looks a whole lot like Chris Penn. Here's a different shot: http://www.wildhorse.com/MiamiVice/cast/mtalbott.jpg

Now when I do a yahoo news photo search, I am instructed also to try a search for "elizabeth edwards fat". Which yields nothing.

but here's another.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041011/capt.paks10210112133.edwards_paks102.jpg

And Teresa Kerry looks a hell of a lot like Zito.

It is the smug, assumed, self-annointed moral superiority of people like Eliz Edwards that is so smarmy.

Lynne Cheney says something Eliz Edwards doesn't like. And why is that, according to Eliz Edwards? Because Mrs Cheney isn't sufficiently enlightened (as Eliz Edwards presumes herself to be), and harbors "shame" over her own daugher.

The presumptuousness of this comment is breath-taking. It says it all.

Props to the Old Coot.

Actually, now that he mentions Hendrie, Mrs. Edwards does sounds suspiciously like a southern-fried Bobbie Dooley.

I'd say she was Phil himself in drag, except that Phil's famously been on Cortaslim.

Edward's cpw need to get her fat ass to Jenny Craig!

1. Republicans forced the issue of gay-marriage. (need a wedge anyone?)
2. The President specifically forced it in the form of an amendment to the constitution.
3. Mary Cheney is a 30 year-old OUT lesbian. She's not in the closet folks and she's not a child who needs your protection. Why aren't we hearing from her? Methinks you-all protest too much.
4. Comparing the mention of Mary Cheney's sexuality to someone's wieght problem exposes exactly how you think - that Mary Cheney has a "problem" and its not polite to mention it.
5. It's fun to watch all the frothing going on here :-)

Got your froth right here, anono-boy. Nice protein-rich froth. Bon appetit!

"4. Comparing the mention of Mary Cheney's sexuality to someone's wieght problem exposes exactly how you think - that Mary Cheney has a "problem" and its not polite to mention it."

LOL. Not at all Anon-troll. We are just parroting the enlightened Kerry line. You should support that!

After all, one could argue that Elizabeth Edwards status as a butterball on the Michael Moore diet and the Oliver Willis workout plan was just an "innate" part of who she is. After all, her enormous weight could simply be the result of genetics. If anything, John Edwards should be commended for the way his family has dealt with Elizabeth's "truth" (thanks Gov. McGreevey!).

Mrs. Edwards' lifestyle choice to be gravitationally-challenged should be elevated into the discussion of health care costs, and exploited for the purpose of making a point. Obesity is lately touted as the number one health care crisis. Right there behind lifestyle choices that result in AIDS.

We can be caring and respectful of her choice while innocently pointing out that she represents so much of the struggle we are facing as Americans in obtaining the best health care..it certainly is John Kerry's number one domestic issue.

Oh. Forgot the /sarcasm tag.

ARGH! I can't type worth a damn, today.

10/14/04

1. The Republican and "Democratic" constituency (over 70% of the nation according to ALL polls) is against gay marriage. I know that some “Democrats” only give lip service to the will of the people (Democracy), but it is an election year, so you should at least try to seem to be Democratic.

2. President Bush specifically as the president of Republicans, "Democrats," and all other citizens served the interest of the Americans constituency, by supporting a constitutional amendment to accomplish the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people. If you do not believe that Americans support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, than give the American people the opportunity to enact such an amendment. If they reject it, you are right. If they enact such an amendment, then you are wrong, and this is not a divisive issue. This is called Democracy.

3. Mary Cheney is a 30-year-old human being with a right to dignity and respect, whose sexuality is being exploited by cynical, ruthless, political opportunists. There is a big difference between support and protection, which may be to nuanced for you. But, if adults don’t need the protection of people sympathetic to their situation, why are you protecting/supporting John Kerry, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards and their campaign attack dogs? On this subject, we should not have to hear from Miss Cheney at all. The Kerry/Edwards campaign should have asked her permission before using her as a pawn in their campaign. Miss Cheney is not part of Mr. Cheney’s record of public service and private business. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards have such weak and ineffectual records that they need to use personal attacks to advance their candidacy. How tragic.

4. If an adult is not breaking any laws, and is in a consensual relationship, it is rude and boorish at best to focus on their sexuality, and in this instance it is purposefully hurtful and cruel. Mr. Kerry, and Mr. and Mrs. Edwards were not being sociable, they were not being helpful, and they were not being sensitive to the gay community. They were not even being responsible ploticians/campaigners. Their behavior showed poor breeding and cultural insensitivity at best, and defective judgement and discrimination at worst. Who else will they exploit for political gain? Who else are they willing to hurt to get elected?

5. It is pathetic to watch all the desperate efforts of the so-called liberal party as they prove that they are not inclusive, not caring, and not Democratic. It is fun to watch purportedly sophisticated people pander their much vaunted moral standards, and prostitute their overstated values to try and finesse just one more exploited illicit vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. As far as the froth is concerned, we enjoy it as much as you do. That’s why we post so much of it. Please come by and watch whenever you wish. We also watch the hysteria on your blogs, and post irritating messages to annoy liberals and stir up their paroxysms of rage for entertainment. You folks never disappoint.

Lonnie Kendall

Ace, two things:

1) Lynne (with an e) Cheney, please. She is, after all, female and born during the era when people understood there was a difference - as in blonde and blond.

2) "Alternate" rather than "alternative", it's easier to read.

Is it too much to hope that this becomes Kerry's "freeing Poland" moment?

Lonnie - the choice of consenting adults as to how they choose to live their sexual lives should not be subject to the "tyranny of the masses" period. This is a human rights issue.

And don't throw out the canard that this is about defining some sanctified religious sacrament called marriage because its not, there is no way the government will ever tell churches that they must perform religious rites for anyone (and if they did, it would be time for action!) - its about extending a legally defined civil contract between two people with all its attendant inheritance, visitation, and financial benefits to a disenfrachised portion of the population.

I'd be fine if the government got out the marriage business period. How about that?

I'm with you DTLV, I'd bet a ten spot that little Mrs chunky spends a lot of sleepless moments wondering if smiley is rolling around in the sheets with some center fold bimbo.

Where, oh where, is Allah with the trimspa photoshop with Wide Load Edwards?

Keep up the good work, ace

Trouble is they don't mean the same thing.

Anonymous Queer writes:

"I'd be fine if the government got out the marriage business period. How about that?"

Sounds good to me, AN!

Meaning that if I see you, Dirk, and Rex the Wonder-tongued dog show up at my door waving your San Francisco wedding Certificate - if the government is out of the marriage business, and has no enforcement powers - I can tell you, your boytoy, and dogtoy to take a hike. Same with any other private individual or business that chooses to not accomodate your lifestyle.

What you seek is the gay agenda shoved down other people's throat, using the Courts, not the Democratic vote. And we all know why you seek marriage, vs. civil unions, so strongly. Because if society is ordered by Judges, and acquisces - accepts marriage for gays, then it acknowledges that gay love is on a moral parity with the millenia-old traditional union of a man and a woman that society universally accepts.

That is why Civil Unions aren't good enough for Queer activists - because even with full benefits and civil rights, that's not quite on the level of government judiciaries forcing acceptance of the whole lifestyle on the general population.

For that, those behind the Gay Agenda need queer marriage.

10/14/04

No Name:

Marriage as defined by law is a liscensed civil institution "of the masses," and is not a private relationship. The details and fact of it are recorded by the state, and the status of marriage confers legal privileges. As to the private lives and relationships of citizens, I agree, they are private.

The canard of religion is yours not mine.

Homosexuals are not a disenfrachised (deprived of all rights especially the right to vote) portion of the population.

I believe that domestic partnerships that define households or families (whether sex is involved or not) should be allowed. People who live together as a family should be empowered to take care of each other. Homosexuals are not the only family model that does not have rights to financial benefits.

Lonnie Kendall

Hey no name,

I agree that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. (That would include the marriage penalty.) I think marriages should be the sole province of the church and civil unions should be the proper realm for the state. And I'm NOT religious but am a libertarian.

However, if you think it's a civil right, then the refusal to perform a marriage by a church would constitute a violation of IRS code. That would mean churches would have to choose between continuing to operate as tax exempt not-for-profit organizations or to perform gay marriages. That IS the current state of the law.

You are wrong in your assertion. Period. Full stop. And you cannot have it both ways.

Many have commented on the anger Dick & Lynne Cheney must feel about Kerry's using of their daughter. How do you think Mary must be feeling? No child likes to see their parent(s) attacked. If Mary is as protective of her father as I've read, the Bush campaign is probably struggling mightily to keep her out of the fight.

I don't believe marriage is a civil right. It's a government arrangement made in the state's best interests.

I believe there are a great many arguments to be made about extending the benefit to homosexuals. I think it would be a conservative influence, encouraging gay couples to form more stable, cohesive relationships and go a long ways towards mitigating many of the social problems plaguing gay youth by placing on them certain expectations of behavior (monogamy, committment).

However, the gay rights movement is very young relative to other movements. Social change takes time and persuasion. When a change is instituted through brute judicial force, the consequences and costs are often disasterous. When courts decide how to define issues like marriage, they often make broad statements of principle which justices follow over a cliff to some ridiculous logical conclusion. We may have gay marriage, but what other horrors would we unleash in our wake? Polygamous marriages? Brother and sister? If the only standard is consenting adults, that's a big force for chaos you're unleashing into an ordered society.

So, let the states do it. Let the legislatures take it up. Some places will move at their own pace and embrace it when the people are ready. I think gay marriage is fairly inevitable. I'm pretty young, and I have no doubt I'll see it in Illinois in my lifetime. But I think rushing to it and forcing it everywhere will do no one any good. It'll merely further polarize the country and render deep resentments that could lead to further partisan damage to the Republic.

etc.

Anonymous Queer:

It is thoroughly American and proper to demand that your neighbors (and by proxy, the government) leave you the hell alone. But it's another thing if you want your neighbors (and again, by proxy, the government) to recognize and respect you. That's something you can request, but that you cannot demand.

Those pushing the gay agenda are demanding we all recognize gay couples, polyandry groupings, as the moral and legal equals of a married couple. Knowing the American public doesn't accept that, they are trying to subvert democracy by having the Courts legislate and make those NOT wanting to recognize and respect you subject to law, with criminal and civil fines if they fail to "respect your diversity", "Display homophobic attitudes", or whatever.

But on Cheney's daughter....I am surprised that the chattering masses failed to understand what was going on. The debates are very programmed and rehearsed affairs. Neither candidate just went into a "Oh, by the way, I was just thinking about the Gay Cheney Daughter" spontaneously. It was introduced deliberately and with forethought.

Backed up by Mary Beth Cahill saying Mary Cheney's sexual ID was "fair game" meaning a Democratic target. Lynne Cheney, a good deal smarter than Dubya, knew what was going on and blasted Kerry for it. Then the smarmy lawyer Elisabeth Edwards condescending to Lynne Cheney, saying Lynne was pissed off about it because of family "shame", and offering the slimiest bit of venomous advice I'd heard in a long time.

Why? Like the constant recitation of the Most Divine John McCain....wedge issue!

Very cynical strategy. Queer-baiting the VP into supporting his daughter - so as to cause the Religious Right to lower their turnout by associating Cheney with Gayness. While at the same time saying to the loyal liberal Democrats they "really understand" gay rights, the gay causes that all Republicans except maybe Dick Cheney are too bigoted to get behind - and Dems like Kerry, Breck Girl, and Krispy Kreem support them except - "wink" - gay marriage. I'm sure they also raised it with Dick Cheney in the hopes it would get him to lose his cool in his only debate, and before the admissions and pattern was clear later, Edwards made it seem to the audience that he was only bringing it up as something he just thought of and wanted to "praise" the VP's family on.

Birkel, Lonnie and Rob,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Some good points that deserve consideration. Birkel - I think I pretty much agree with you except for your opinion that Churches would lose their tax-exempt status if they refused to perform gay-marriages. Wouldn't separation of Church and State prevent that as well as the fact that marriages can be performed outside of religious setting (justice of the peace)? But yeah, let's have churches perform marriages and the state recognize civil unions. But I don't think you should be able to prevent a Church that _wants_ to perform gay-marriages from doing so.

Cedarford: you are a dumb-ass. My wife and 3yr old daughter think so too. Well, that's not fair-she's not old enough to understand any of this. But if she were, I'm pretty sure she would think you were a huge dumb-ass.

But it's another thing if you want your neighbors (and again, by proxy, the government) to recognize and respect you. That's something you can request, but that you cannot demand.

Yes, I feel exactly the same way about dumbasses and any dumbass relationship they may enter into. In fact I think there should be a Federal Defense of Marriage Act that prevents dumb-asses such as yourself from destroying the sanctity of non-dumb-ass marriages.

No Name wrote:
Wouldn't separation of Church and State prevent that as well as the fact that marriages can be performed outside of religious setting (justice of the peace)?

I will roll this out again. You are wrong. I am correct. Period. Full stop. It does not matter that marriages "can" be performed somewhere else. What matters is the denial of somebody's civil rights WILL (if pursued through the appropriate legal channels) result in the loss of tax exempt status.

Liberty University (Jerry Falwell's U., IIRC) will (hideously) not allow mixed-race dating. They lost their tax exempt status. Google it. Once again, let me repeat, YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS POINT.

Google something before you make an erroneous claim! It's not like this is a debate format. You have a computer right in front of you. It's the box with the words inside. Correcting your wrongness is not my job. You deserve one good natured correction. This is a firm smack down. Now, stop bugging me and buy a friggin' clue.

Oh, BTW, you're welcome for the thoughtful response.

Wouldn't separation of Church and State prevent that

My, my, my. How naive we are.

OK. Smack-down accepted. Wish you didn't need to be such a jerk about it though.

Well, Mrs. Edwards, two can play at the amateur psychoanalysis game. For example, it's commonly said that when people are unhappy they tend to overeat. Care to comment on that? Would you say that's true in your case, or was your weight gain prompted by something else?

[I should add; I'm taking those fertility drugs right now, and losing weight on them is impossible. But then, I'm not condoning nationally-broadcast repulsive behavior by my spouse, either].

Furthermore, I notice that you have a rather inexpert dye job done on your hair. Would you agree that this implies that you still feel bound by society's strictures that one should attempt to remain youthful-looking far past the natural age? Or would you accept instead the reasoning that you are pushed into doing this by the fact that your husband, contrary to stereotypical image, is much prettier and more youthful looking than you are? It has to be rough to know that he's starting to look like your oldest boy, eh?

What? You say these questions and speculations are offensive? That I've never met you and couldn't possibly pronounce as to why you've gained weight and dyed your hair? That there could be completely innocuous reasons for these things? Funny, it worked for you. I guess we plebs just don't understand your high and lonely intellectual workings.

No Name - the choice of consenting adults as to how they choose to live their sexual lives should not be subject to the "tyranny of the masses" period. This is a human rights issue.

Libertarians are as useful to the people pushing the Gay Agenda as Kerry and Fonda were to the Vietcong. Useful idiots, that is. Yes, the rights of consenting adult man/18+ daughter partners, a polygamist with 15 wives, a gay triad, a man and his sheep are of no concern, eh??

'Cause you think Gummint has no business in establishing for the people what forms of marriage are permitted, "between any variety of consenting adults, and a consenting adult and a willing pet".

Of course once you have gay marriage and they show up at your house demanding the rental unit offered, and Arab/Mormon harems are sucking up benefits and welfare because 15 wives and 46 kids are more than one man can afford - and government mandates 112 "rights and privileges" due married partners - you will say "not a problem if the dang Gummint stays out of all that too".

Too late Libertarian! No one outside Libertarians have any intent of eliminating all the other Gummint stuff on marriage. So the Gummint slaps you with a huge HUD anti-discrimination lawsuit for refusing to rent to married gay lovers, and jacks your taxes up to pay for the footing the burden of paying all living costs of the 15 wives and 46 kids the guy sent for from Somalia via legal chain immigration of wive(s) and children.

Enjoy! Freedom!

It's worth you living with it and paying for the consequences!

The question was "Do you believe that people are born homosexuals or that they choose to be that way?" (paraphrased)

Here is what the very morally superior John Kerry REALLY meant!
It is a matter of genetics. Your daughter is your fault. Genitically inferior. On the other hand, MY daughters are NOT lesbians.

No Name,

Libertarian beliefs on gay marriage are wholly inconsistent. Libertarians fail to realize that one of the main reasons gays want marriage is to get the "partner's" government benefits. Just watch the "No on 36" commercials up here in Oregon if you don't believe me. They're all about the "partner's" pension from the police department.

That ain't a way to smaller gummint, jackson.

The remarks by Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, that the Cheneys are embarrassed by their daughters sexual preference. Makes me picture her (Elizabeth Edwards) as trailer trash. I live in the south and have watched this all my life. The old saying you can take a boy out of the country but you can’t take the country out of the boy. Looks like the same thing here. You can dress her up, give her plenty of money, a fine car and house. But that foul mouth trash will always come out. It always happens. They just can’t seem to discuss anything controversial with out letting the foul mouth trash come out.

These is my opinion and have no evidence that Elizabeth Edwards has ever lived in or seen a trailer. Also this is not an intended slur on people who live in manufactured homes as I have lived in one myself.(is that good enough as a disclaimer?)