Andrea Mitchell On Imus -- Again, highly critical of Kerry

[Jon8503]

says that his mentioning of Cheney's daughter completely out of bounds, last night on Hardball critical of Kerry. Mentioned the social security part of the debate. But of course she would be critical of that part, as it does not agree with what her husband Allen Greenspan says.

She is totally unfair and should not be used on a panel because of her bias.

[DaveSZ]

1. Agreed

I don't trust her or any of the media shills.

[TheDebbieDee]

2. And she's UGLY, too!

[durablend]

11. She's probably FRIGID!

NT

[liberal N proud]

3. Whore!

[fishface]

4. The question was about the gay marriage amendment.

Cheney's daughter is gay.
Fuck her.

[sgtyellerdawg]

5. Remarks about Cheney's daughter

Several times I have heard people make reference to the mentioning of Cheney's lesbian daughter as a "cheap shot" by both Edwards and Kerry and I was rather perplexed since it is common knowledge - and the Cheneys for the most part do not hide her away like they did 4 years ago. I was talking to a friend of mine who has a gay daughter and she said the reason some people consider it a "cheap shot" is because some folks can not relate nor understand how anyone could be "proud" to have a gay child let alone speak openly about it. My friend is very proud of her child and loves her dearly and makes no bones about her child being gay but said that some feel shame and that is why, for some people, it is considered a "cheap shot" to mention Mary Cheney. (I don't buy Andrea Mitchell's comments this morning on Imus that the Kerry campaign is sending a message to the GOP anti-gay base that Cheney is not one of their own because he loves his gay daughter... especially after hearing Kerry's response to the gay question last night.)

Kerry was great last night and the big Mo should take him right on into the White House!!!

:yourock:

[spooky3]

9. welcome to DU, sgtyellerdawg! I think KE are simply trying to put

a face on policies, which they have done with other questions during the debates or during campaign speeches, because people's views often change when you get beyond platitudes and talk about specific people and how a policy would affect them. Edwards has used the same technique when he gets attacked for his brilliant career as an attorney. He talks specifically about one of his clients and how he helped them get justice. This completely reframes the issue.

on edit--Reagan was a master at this same technique. He had an anecdote to illustrate every point he made.

In the case of talking about Mary Cheney, a question about a constitutional amendment restricting her rights is very appropriately answered by a discussion of how it would affect her and how hypocritical it is for a members of party of "family values" to treat a member of their own family as less than a full citizen.

Republicans also are notoriously bad at empathy. If a problem affects your family, that's your problem, which means that it is NO problem. If a problem affects THEIR family, then the entire country should take action on it.

[sgtyellerdawg]

12. thanks!

Thanks Spooky for the welcome. Been a lurker for some time! I hope that one day we will get beyond the "it is bad to be gay thing" and focus on the real issues that face us all like jobs, health care, etc.

[Green Mountain Dem]

6. Imus needs some wood.....

preferably a 2X4 up side his head!! Is that fuck ever going to go ONE freakin day without whining about how badly he feels? He needs to retire with his buddies Zell and LIEberman. Is there any doubt about his real position on Kerry?? Fuck him and his staff...I'll take Stern anyday.

[Richardson08]

10. Imus is a washed up Howard Stern wannabe

[Richardson08]

7. She needs some more botox-her face is falling apart again

It obvious she had some work done on her face

Robert Rubin for Fed Chairman

[depakid]

8. She should NEVER be on a panel, for certain

or on TV in any other context where she's supposedly "objective." But of course, the media isn't interested in ethics or journalism.