WP's Terry Neal suckered by Bush operative in on-line chat? I think so.

[BurtWorm]

"Openly gay?" Yeah. Right.


http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/neal_100704.htm

San Francisco, Calif.: I am an openly gay woman who just took down my Kerry-Edwards sign. I felt Kerry's comment last night was sleazy. Each gay person should be allowed to live their life as publically and/or privately as they wish. Within the last hour, I heard Elizabeth Edwards speak how about the Cheney's shame over having a gay daughter. Who is she to say that? Kerry-Edwards need to clean this up and quickly apologize.

Terry Neal:
Thanks for your note. I have received some emails from people saying similar things. Kerry's mention did seem sort of gratuitously thrown in there last night--and I said that right after the debate on CNN Headline News.
On the other hand, Cheney brought up his daughter’s sexuality himself, without prompting, at a live, televised campaign event in August. (See the link provided)
Some people might argue that Cheney can't selectively use his daughter's sexuality for politically purposes. Once he puts it out there, it's in the public discourse.
People can decide for themselves what to think. I'm just saying there are two sides to the issue.

[auburngrad82]

1. Signed, Mary's Mom

[dennis4868]

2. Signed, Karl Rove

[yardwork]

3. Let's give the caller the benefit of the doubt.

Is she going to vote for *? Why, exactly?

[Minimus]

5. I just cannot believe that she (or any K/E supporter) would vote for bush

based on Kerry's comment. She has to be a plant.

But to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she will decide not to vote at all.

[yardwork]

7. I don't believe it either. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt

I find it highly unlikely that she would decide to vote for * on this basis, when * has been so hostile to gays and lesbians.

Then again, I don't understand the so-called "undecideds" either, but I think some of them are real.

I'm not going to waste anymore time over morans. The key is turnout. There are enough people supporting Kerry to win the election. Get them to the polls and let the morans and undecideds mull things over for four more years.

[saracat]

6. Why? Give her the benefit of the doubt?????

[yardwork]

8. Let me TRY to explain - I meant, even if she is legit (which I doubt)

what lesbian woman would decide to vote for chimp on this basis?

Either she's a plant or she's a moran. That was my point.

[saracat]

10. I realize that. Thanks. I just meant, she was so obvious

why give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Inland]

4. Mary Cheney chose to live publically--I respect her choice.

Not only is she openly gay like the supposed caller, she is a paid Republican party operative. Paid. Party. Operative.

She, like the caller, decided to be open. I respect that choice, and I don't think that we should act like there is something shameful in her life that has to be confined to muttered whispers and bathroom wall scrawls.

[IIgnoreNobody]

9. Neal is not impressive.

Look here for example when he agrees with the person's false charge:

Vienna, Va.: Everybody keeps harping on the Congressional Black Caucus statement, but Kerry also said that Bush had never met with any civil rights organizations.

That is clearly not true, unless the Urban League is no longer considered a civil rights organization.

And besides, is it fair to castigate Bush for not meeting with the NAACP after that group ran TV ads in 2000 linking Bush to the dragging death of Mr. Byrd in Texas? That was a revoltingly offensive ad, and yet the media says it's Bush's fault for not meeting with the NAACP. What gives?

Terry Neal: Well, to start from your last question and go back, when did "the media" say it was Bush's fault for not meeting with the NAACP. My recollection was that it was Kerry who said that. I don't doubt that there have been some editorials and talking heads that have chastised him for that, but I'm also there have been others in the media who have defended him, just as you have. There is no one monolithic media. If that were the case, Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather would be joining hands and singing Kumbaya ever day.
Second of all, you are right. Bush did meet with the Urban League and Kerry probably would have been better off not using the broad brush accusation that Bush had never met with any civil rights organizations.
As to whether he should have met with the NAACP, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. I think however, that you might be accused of the same sort of broad overreach when you accuse the NAACP of "linking" Bush to the death of the Byrd.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/neal_100704.htm

The problem, of course, is that Kerry did not say 'that Bush had never met with any civil rights organizations.' Here is what he did say:

Now, let me just share something. This president is the first president ever, I think, not to meet with the NAACP. This is a president who hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. This is a president who has not met with the civil rights leadership of our country.

If a president doesn't reach out and bring people in and be inclusive, then how are we going to get over those barriers? I see that as part of my job as president, and I'll make my best effort to do it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html

[BurtWorm]

12. Does Neal truly believe that Kerry's fundamental point is untrue?

Does he think it's unfair to characterize Bush as basically indifferent to civil rights? Does he think a speech in front of the Urban League is sufficient to throw that charge into doubt?

Do I think Terry Neal would answer this question honestly? :eyes:

Damn lllliberal media!

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Whoops. There goes San Francisco.

Curses!

:eyes: