Centerfield

Alan Keyes called Mary a "selfish hedonist" and the Cheyneys remained reasonably calm. John Kerry mentions her in a debate discussion about gay rights and the Cheyneys become outraged.

Nobody who watched the debate was upset until Lynne and Dick Cheyney told them to be. Now loyal Republicans express feigned outrage in what appears to be an attempt to manipulate the political discussion.

Aren't all events in the political sphere 'attempt[s] to manipulate the political discussion'?

Anyway, my view is best summed up by Reid Stott: "a calculated false “outrage,” in response to a calculated “innocent” mention of the VP’s daughter."

Singling Out Mary Cheney Wrong, Most Say: 2 in 3 Polled Find Kerry's Comment 'Inappropriate'

As I said, it was dumb. (It was also wrong, regardless of the strident rationalizations of cheerleaders.)

So the choir is preaching to the polls.

MWS and Rosen are correct. It's a hollow wolf cry. And it's a set up to distract.

Tully,

You really think it was wrong? I will not vote for the man, but I really think Cheney wants his daughter to be happy and would like society to treat her like anyone else's child.

I was wrong about the impact of the statement -- or about the ability of the noise machine to make sure every drop of possibility was wrung out of the issue. But I still think the umbrage was faked, otherwise they would have expressed it after the debate with Edwards.

Anyway, that will help keep me from under-estimating the noise machine for the remainder of the campaign. Soundbite+pundits+Fox+Limbaugh+Drudge = a very powerful combination!

Erasmus, I think it is wrong to throw in a personal shot, of whatever kind, at your opponent's children. Grown or not, and regardless of the subject. It's a blatant violation of the generally accepted rules for campaigning. It may not be a written code, but it's a very real one.

For the opposing "noise machines" to generate buzz about a candidate's kids is one thing, and will happen regardless of the ethics involved. (There are too many independent operators involved in a national campign to keep them all in line, or even close--your friends can often hurt you more than your enemies!) But to do it personally in a debate forum is simply out of bounds, and experienced campaigners know it.

IMHO, I also think it was dumb, because the downside potential was large and the upside potential was small. "Trying to fill an inside straight" dumb. That's seperate from any personal judgement about the ethics involved. Smart is what helps you. Dumb is what hurts you. The odds were it was more likely to hurt than help.

Once the breach is made, it's out there and can't be ignored. It must be addressed. So both sides will hit it with heavy spin to either mitigate the damage or increase it, depending on the side and the effect. Standard campaign procedure, as predictable as sunrise.

Tully,

I agree he shouldn't have said it. But in the context of this election (where the GOP is trying to insinuate that Kerry's wife would be an inappropriate first lady and where Bush has cynically supported an anti-gay marriage amendment), I find it hard to get too outraged about this.

Outraged, ambivalent, indifferent--it's all up to you. The above was my honest take from experience. The reactions of the public drive the politics and noise, but are all ex post facto and don't change the base calculation. Ethically wrong, pragmatically dumb. But still only one factor of many to consider. Sadly we don't get to pick and choose candidate qualities and actions and buld the ideal, we have to take Door A or Door B. As Bill the Cat says, "Ack!"

i'm looking for http://steelbuildings.angelcities.com