Lynne Cheney pissed at Kerry over the lesbian issue...
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

:lol:

I can't stop laughing. I wasn't sure if this was a joke or not... (article below).

First off, I already knew that their daughter was a lesbian long before last night's debate. My source of info? Dick Cheney himself.

Second, she mentions that he crossed the line into family privacy. HELLO, you're a political figure AND your husband already mentioned (in public) that your daughter was a lesbian. Therefore, your life, in that aspect, is no longer private.

It's not like Kerry was the one who broke the news to Lynne, Dick, and the world.

I think they're just upset because he made a good point when the very man that's on their side couldn't even do that :lol:

They are just making a stink because they can. If they are truly upset about it then they need to rethink what Kerry said.

So it would be appropriate for Bush to make comments about Kerry's daughter looking sluttish for appearing in France in the see-through dress and no bra? After all, we've all seen the pics...

Public info or not, I think Kerry's statement was a cheap low blow.

Sure, if there were questions about the sluttiness of the youth dressers today. Or something.

Everyone knew when Kerry said that there would be fallout. It'll be sound and fury signifying nothing. As usual.

It would be relevant if kerry was advocating a constitutional amendment banning see through dresses.

Get over it, pointing out hypocrisy is part of politics. The low blow is favoring a constitutional amendment to limit the freedoms of your daughter.

That's already illegal in most of the country to appear in public with a see-through garment that exposes female nipples under the public decency laws. Would it have been fair for Bush to say "Kerry can't even keep his own daughter from breaking the public decency laws, so how can he prevent terrorists from killing people?"

Of course not. It'd be a very low blow. Kerry's even MENTIONING Cheney's daughter in ANY negative context was inappropriate.

Kerry's daughter was NOT wearing a see through dress. It is an effect of a camera flash that momentarially makes a screen dress transparent. To anyone who was THERE, you couldn't see anything.

And, Lynn Cheney can go to hell, years ago she vehemently denied her daughter was gay. She kept her locked up in the family closet. Kerry wasn't denigrating her, he's fighting FOR her rights. And since Dick Cheney already brought her up, and her issue, willingly at the second debate, there's no reason for Kerry not to mention her.

Look I don't think John Kerry did anything "evil" but I do dislike the man, but that aside...

I do not see why he needed to bring it up again. With Dick Cheney in VP debate, sure it made sense, its SUPPOSE TO BE TALKING TO THE OTHER CANIDATE- obviously these debates are not... but in keeping with that- it made somewhat sense. To the president... why bring it up?- My opinion, ust to embarass them VP but dont flame me

Uh, hahaha how was it a low blow?

He made a very good point. While Bush was more or less saying that "it's a choice", Kerry said that we are how we are and accepted it.

I'm sure Dick/Lynne don't think anything is "wrong" with their daughter and openly support her.

Fuck Lynn Cheney. She just can't come to the realization that her daughter's a lesbian. My opinion is that I think that the Cheney's are ashamed of their daughter and embarrassed to call her family. This is a typical conservative response to this issue. Especially if it's their kid. She's needs to come to terms with it. Kerry is trying to make sure that she has rights in this country. As far as Bush and Co. are concerned, she would be locked away forever to be conveniently forgotten about. Both the Cheney's need to grow a pair of balls and put the welfare of their family above bullshit politics just so Dubya can get re-elected. If I were Cheney's daughter, I'd be pretty ashamed to have them as parents.

So you're saying being gay is indecent? I'm not seeing the similarities with your analogy...

Being a lesbian and fighting for your rights has nothing to do with wearing a see through dress.

Taking a candid picture of someone and having the bulb flash in a way to expose what's underneath (it happens all the time at prom/homecoming) is very different than someone openly saying (in public), "our daughter is gay, we support her."

I think it was a well made point by Kerry, and i agree that he is looking out for her rights, when her own father wants to help push for her oppression. And not only that, but to actually put such hate into the constitution of our country. I dont see how Chaney can look his daughter in the eye.

Well, to be fair, didn't Dick say himself that he was supportive of her? I knew I read/heard that at some point recently because I thought, "That's funny... Bush is against gay marriage, but because Dick's daughter is a lesbian, he's for it."

If Bush's daughter was a lesbian, he'd change his tune too. I guess you can't see the err of your ways until it hits you in the face.

I was dissapointed in Kerry. I think that most Americans know that Cheney's daughter is gay, but her could have just as easily made his point without mentioning her. I don't think he was trying to denigrate her or the Cheney's, but it really did not come across well. That being said, both Dick and Lynne Cheney are happy to use anything to their advantage and frequently do use personal and family attacks on their opponents, so it is a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Still, Kerry should not have brought it up.

This was a social faux pas, but hardly something to sway someone's vote away from Kerry. I don't think we have numbers big enough to count all of Bush's faux pas'.

Seems pretty clear that Kerry brought it up in order to embarass Cheney and Co. As has been said, it was completely unnecessary. Hell, gay marriage is turning out to be one of the most minor issues in this campaign, like it or not. I wouldn't consider it a low blow, but I would consider it shameful.

If you think that mentioning someone as being a lesbian and saying that it's natural for them is negative, then YOU'RE inappropriate. That's what's wrong with Lynn.

That's a good way to sum up the whole gay rights issue. Most people are afraid of gays because they don't really know any gay people. I'm talking about having some sort of real social relationship either friendship or having a gay family member.

There are lots of people who say they know gay people. What they mean is there is that gay guy at work or down the street. They don't *know* what that person is about, they don't take the time to find out. If they did, they'd see that outside of the sexual mechanics of it they are so much like everyone else. Maybe then they wouldn't be so afraid.

I have never heard a valid arguement against gay marriage that wasn't based on a PERSONAL system of beliefs. It's one of the few issues that I really have against Kerry. I wish he would support it, but I understand that supporting it would be political suicide in these times.

Exactly, he didn't gay bash Dick's daughter. Saying someone happens to be a lesbian, when they ARE a lesbian (and are out of the "closet") isnt wrong. If someone mentions that i'm strait i dont take offense. I think people are upset because it was just a perfect example and truly cut deep. It was a very appropriate response and very powerful. An administration that doesnt care about even repressing their own family makes me worry.

It's mostly embarassing to Cheney and Co. because he supported constitutional amendments that limit his own daughter's liberty. It's not so much as trying to convey that the VP's daughter is a lesbian as much as it is trying to convey that the VP is a hypocrite.

Well, since there is absolutely zero fucking connection between controlling the behavior of one's adult aged children and fighting terrorism, it would seem to me that if bush made that comparison, it would just be par for the course in terms of the cognitive jumps he is capable of.

It would be a low blow to mention bush's daughter's indiscretions, because they are irrelevant. Mentioning the sexuality of one of your opponents family members(after is has already been mentioned without offense in an earlier debate) and thereby exposing his hypocrisy is only a low blow if you demand so much respect for your candidate that you consider any criticism of him to be a low blow. I don't know why you can't see that the homosexuality of cheney's daughter is relevant.

I think the reason why the Repubs are so pissed off is because they see it as Kerry callously and cynically reminding Bush's Conservative Base (read: fervently against homosexuality) that there just so happens to be a female HOMOSEXUAL!! in Bush's camp. Edwards did it too. Subliminal political warfare?

And its a personal issue. Just because someone came out of the closet and says yes im gay, that doesnt mean you should, when walking around town, say btw s/he is gay AND its her daughter, maybe the daughter came out the closet, but does all of America need to be told? Im sure, despite what the daugther says, shes a little embarassed over someone ANNOUNCING IT OVER AND OVER on national TV, even if she accepts it

Didn't Cheney come out and say he personally didn't support the Amendment, but that it was his job to support the President?

Either way, the comment filteron made is the most appropriate and telling of this thread. It's not as if Kerry mentioned the fact that Bush's daughters were illegally buying alchohol and alledgedly attending naked frat parties and repeatedly getting into trouble with the law... because none of that has any relevance to the debate.

But changing your Constituion DOES have relevance and is one of the tenets of the Republican's own farking campaign!

The truth hurts when it cuts deep. Get over it.


Mr Mephisto

I have. They're just kinda hard to find. And ultimately flawed, in my view.

Eh, it's not hypocrisy. It's choosing your battles. Gay marriage isn't worth a potential divide in the executive when there are so many other, more important issues out there. Compared to the economy and the war, this is trivial.

superbelt, so the nipples were fake?

Which doesn't make the orientation of Cheney's daughter any more relevant.

No, he's saying that while the transparency was caught on film, it was too brief for anyone there watching to notice.

So, based upon that statement, I assume you support non-voluntary "outing"? After all, if the sexual orientation of people (even people NOT running for office) is relevant to the political debate, don't we have a RIGHT to know if they're gay or not?

Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation is no more relevant than Kerry's daughters being hose-beasts. It was an inappropriate comment.

Hypocrite ? How is Cheney a Hypocrite because he opposes gay marriages, and his daughters a lesbian? I don't see how that fits into this scenario??? Ironic but not hypocracy

foolthemall, it's a strict liability offense. It doesn't MATTER how long it took place for, or who could see it.

It's relevant because Cheney is on a ticket that supports an amendment that would curtail the rights of a group of people to which his daughter belongs.

The true hypocracy would be if Dick himself were gay. His daughter's being gay makes it close enough for most people who disagree with him.

The nipples are irrelevant.

Maybe bush could bring up kerry's daughter if she were a member of some sort of terrorist organization. This would be a good way to point out that kerry didn't have what it takes to fight terrorism, because he has a terrorist in his own family. If this were true, i have no doubt that most of the people in this thread currently feigning offense for cheney's daughter (someone they've never even met, and whose right to marry they would probably deny) would have no problem mentioning kerry's "unmentionable terrorist daughter".

Back here in this reality, kerry's vp's family doesn't exist in direct opposition to kerry's proposed policies, whereas bush's vp's family does exist in direct opposition to bush's policies. Accept it and move on.

Admit it, you're just pissed because kerry exposed one of those, what do they call them, exagerati- i mean, inconsistensies?

She wasn't "outed" by kerry. She's been out for a long fucking time.

You should stop calling it innapropriate if you can't provide a rationally based reason to support the idea that it was innapropriate.


If the president chooses to run a campaign based partly on the promise of denying the rights of a certain portion of the populace, he shouldn't be surprised if his opponent points out the fact that the president and the vp are working against the interests of the vp's daughter.

It's not a matter of inconsistency in this case, it's a matter of being politically shrewd. Weren't there a couple of people giving Kerry a pass on opposing gay marriage because it would be "political suicide"? Well, can't that apply to Cheney's situation as well?

I guess i see inconsistency in the idea of being pro-family and anti-big government, yet still advocating for big government to tell someone in your family that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everybody else.

The republican party is socially AND economically conservative. The platform says that the government should protect conservative social values such as not being a fag and not letting people fuck before they're married. Economically, economic conservatism IS de-regulation and big-corporation.

I disagree on both positions of their party, but it's not really inconsistant.

Ok look, during the VP the gay rights were brought up and Edwards talked about Cheney's daughter.

Do you GOP'ers who are so vehement about Kerry using her as an example, remember what Cheney's response was?

He didn't even answer the question. He took the TIME HE WAS ALLOTTED AND THANKED EDWARDS FOR THE KIND WORDS EDWARDS HAD SAID!!!!!!! THAT WAS CLASS from Cheney.

I have very little respect for Dick Cheney, but at that moment in the debate he showed class and compassion for his daughter.

Kerry and Edwards use Cheney's daughter, because 1) people can say, "oh yeah, we know of her." 2) to show the hypocrasy in the GOP and 3) because they do it not to be hurtful but to show her dignity and compassion.

The point has been brought up, if Kerry and Edwards were truly trying to just bash the other side they could discuss W's daughters drinking and legal problems, his neice's drug abuse and legal problems BUT THEY don't. Neither do the Dems or anyone. Why? Because that would be hurtful and mean spirited and uncalled for.

I guess under those definitions i see the republican idealogy as fundamentally inconsistent. To claim that the goverment hasn't the foresight to regulate business and also claim that it does have to forsight to regulate social behavior seems a little inconsistent to me.

But all this is beside the point of this thread.

2) As I put it above, I don't really see the hypocrisy.
3) I really, really doubt this was their motive. I don't doubt that they want this to be seen as their motive.

I think they picked this route because of your #3, because they thought they could easily disguise it as compassionate, rather than purely political. But the Bush daughters drinking? Clearly that would be a politically motivated low blow.

I don't think it will work as well as they hoped, though.

I agree with what you are saying, probably more than I want to. :hmm: I was just trying to say that Lynne Cheney sounds like she wants to bitch and turn it into something that her husband really doesn't want to, because he understands and knows he'd do the same.

Course that's just women...... ummmm errrrrr not all women. The ones here on the TFP and my wife would NEVER bitch about something that their husbands don't see as an issue.

the Bush campaign they lost all three debates and Kerry has surged into the lead.
yeah, i'd be pissed over things like this if I were them too, they're in desperation mode now.

When you get your ass kicked over and over on the issues, personal attacks will ensue. Ms. Cheny opened fire.

Seems to me, almost as if this was the only thing they had to pick on in the entire debate. Whereas CNN had the "I'm not worried about Osama" quote on the air before the damn thing was even over. Maybe the GOP is running out of Ammo, and starting to reach a bit further into that little world of make believe they refer to as "reality". Or maybe I am just so freakin' sick of the endless parade of non-issues that I refuse to listen to these pointless soundbites anymore.

Balanced against all of the under-handed shit the bush-cheney campaign has pulled, I don't think mentioning relevant facts about a canidates family is that big of a deal.

Let's see, Mary Cheney has worked in gay outreach for Coors and for Republican politicians. So why is mentioning her sexuality a taboo?

100% totally hit the nail on the head with that statement.

That's exactly what I was gonna post when I got back home, but you beat me to it ;)

IMO, it was a clever move on Kerry's part, not a "low blow" like others are saying.

For those who still think it's a low blow, let's use use this comparison (and I feel this is a perfectly acceptable analogy of sorts):

It's the 1800's and an election is going on. One of the candidates has a vice president with a black (mixed) child and this was made known to the public. That candidate is against the abolishment of slavery. His opponent is FOR abolishment of slavery and mentions, "My opponent, whose daughter is black, should be treated equally and without contempt."

The other side retorts back saying it was a low blow, when in fact the candidate FOR the abolishment of slavery was pretty much dead on in his statements and ideas while not ONCE crossing any line. Was he speaking badly? No. Not even ONCE. He made a good point in saying anyone who lives in this country deserves equal rights and benefits regardless of race.

Flat out, it was a well made point on the part of Kerry. Whether you're FOR gay marriage or not, it goes without saying that they must also be treated equally just like anyone else. That's all he was saying.

I find it amusing that Lynne Cheney would attack John Kerry over his comments rather than showing the American public how they love and support their daughter unconditionally. But then again,... One of the GOP'S talking heads really got that one wrong.

Or did they?,..maybe they were trying to deflect from Bush's abortion statements that everyone has the right to life. That's his opinion of course in that context but I really don't think Bush should be talking about anyones right to life especially after 10,000 Iraqi's end up dead because of ,..what was it,..WMD?.

I agree sounds to me like she is ashamed of her daughter and feels personally embarassed that her daughter should have a different lifestyle than she approves of.

As stated before, MR. Cheney showed massive class with this subject at the VP debate. I think (regardless of what I think of him politically) that he is probably a very loving, caring and compassionate father to his daughter. For that belief (and it is just what I have seen) I respect immensely that about him.

I have nothing to add, but I'll say it anyway.

It was fair game. The Veep introduced her to the millions of folks watching to score political points (just like every other politician) and placed his daughter's sexuality in the public domain.

Sen. Kerry was asked a question to which Cheney's daughter's sexuality was relevant. He used it to score political points with the television audience (again, just like very other politician.) Also, I might add, had Sen. Kerry tried to anecdotalize his response and speak of some illusionary "parents" with a gay child, he would have been lambasted by these same people. "We know who he's "really" talking about, right" would flood the airwaves along with talk of how disrespectful the candidate had been. It was a lose/lose situation for Kerry, but I think he did the right thing. There was no denigration. I think he tried to handle as best he could considering the options.

This indignatious outrage from Lynne Cheney is far from genuine and is only an attempt to score, you guessed it, more political points with the American people.

The only opinion I would truly care to hear regarding Mary Cheney's sexuality and this election is Mary Cheney's. Anyone elses opinion, as Averett so eloquently put it, is sound and fury, folks.

All ifs ands or buts aside, comparing a see through dress to preventing terrorism is like comparing apples to NUCLEAR WARHEADS. It makes about as much sense as the "World of Nations".

I think the outrage from Mrs. Cheney is actually probably genuine, but not in a way that reflects positively upon her.

I see it as one thing to mention your own family situation in order to provide an understanding of your perspective on the issue, and an entirely different thing to drag your opponent's family situation into a point you wish to make. There was no explicit denigration, but the less-than-compassionate motive could be seen by reading between the lines.

Why use her as an example? Why not somone Kerry actually knows, like Chris Dodd?

Why shouldn't he use her as an example?

Lynn and Dick's feigned "outrage"= desperate spin from the crew of a sinking ship!

it was a subtly backhanded compliment. of course, it was framed innocently, but kerry just wants to remind bush's right wing base about the issue. didn't think it was such a big deal until today though. now the statement has much more attention.

they made fun of it on the daily show after the VP debate. Stewart kept emphasizing the phrase GAY DAUGHTER, getting louder and louder. something to the effect that Edwards kindly spoke of Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER, how much respect he had for his GAY DAUGHTER, that Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER should be treated equally under the law. the last time Stewart yelled GAY DAUGHTER, they made his voice echo. good stuff.

I saw that Daily Show bit. It was great stuff.

by the way, you guys should check on that book lynne wrong a long time ago.
guess what it's about? hot girl-on-girl action! proof that it's enjoyed by republicans too, i guess.

here is a sample...

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art19337.asp

would have been funny if kerry somehow weaved the name of the book into a compliment during the debate, acting like he was serious. "i am deeply inspired by the book sisters by lynne cheney."

Gay Daughter? Probably the only way to make it normal is to point it out. For many years it has been the conservatives "private pain" Too delicate a subject to broach. Fuck them, they want to have it both ways. A friend was told by his father "I'd rather see you dead than gay" The only way to stop it is to point out the Cheney's astounding hypocrisy.

Hot girl on girl action. Did the politics board and the TB just merge?

John Kerry's tears were that of a crocodile.

That is why they don't play well.

there seems to be many misconceptions concerning the conservative stance on homosexuality.

i'm a total liberal...and identify as queer.... Despite my support for Kerry in most matters, i'm very disaapointed in him. It's a cheap stunt to use someone's family like that. I disagree with Mary, and i think she's participating in the oppression of the queer community. But it seems apparent to me that to many listeners, hearing that she is gay would be percieved as a negative. Kerry appears to have intended this...it was an attack on Bush's credibility with his base supporters.

Outing is a way of using your queer idenity as an insult. It is a last ditch manouver, to be reserved for the most extreme circumstance. Kerry dissapointed me...but i will forgive it. He has been supportive of the community in other ways...and of the canidates, provides the best outcome for the queer community, IMO.

Thanks for that post.

I agree with you that Kerry has a much more palatable stance if you, like I, support gay rights.

I just can't get past some other issues with him.

No one has really explained how it was a jab, but oh well, that's expected, hehe :lol:

[edit]

I think what we have here is a classic case of "Hey, I'm a republican.. Cheney is a republican.. therefore, what Kerry said was bad!! BOOO!!" instead of a "Well, to be honest, what he said wasn't really that big of a deal".

So Kerry says that he supports Mary Cheney's way of life and wants to make sure that she can live as freely as possible without fear of retribution or discrimination, and Lynne Cheney's upset about this??? But she has no problem with trying to amend the Constitution to allow for legalised discrimination???

Mary Cheney must be welling up with pride as we speak.

Dick and Lynne Cheney were Outed, not their daughter
 

You weren't following the thread. Cheney's daughter wasn't outed!!!!!!!!!!! She's been out for a long time. It was VP Cheney and his wife who were outed to their conservative base, they don't want the fact of a gay child to disturb their conservative hate-mongering. It raises to many questions. And you know how Bush and Cheney feel about questions....

i'm using outing in the broader sense. many of bush's supporters didn't know anything about mary. to spread the information that she is gay, with the intent of separating conservative voters from bush....that's not cool in my book.

now...the Cheney's crocodile tears for this all, when they've played both sides of the issue, and align themselves with a party who spreads fear of teh queer community...well, i'm sorry, but i really don't feel much for them. Is mary a hypocrite to work for coors like she did? Yeah. Work for the campaign like she did? Yeah.

Is kerry a hypocrite to say he supports the queer community, and then to use Mary's queerness against Bush? Yeah.

How did Bush's own supporters not know that Mary Cheney was a lesbian? I knew it and I don't even live in the US. And I don't see how the above is hypocritical at all.

a lot of bush supporters on the religious right wouldn't exactly go looking for that news. i find slight mentions of dick's earlier remarks "freedom is freedom" at family.org...and no mentions i can find from pat robertson.

now...its a fallacy to say that's all the media of the religious right, but it's not been a banner and headline issue for them. the leadership of those circles tends to put top priority on the 2004 election, and will try to sort out the small stuff afterwards. thus...for the rank and file, kerry or edward's mention of mary may have been the first time that was brought up for them.

it's unseemly to be queer and participate in the repression of other queers. Thanks, mary, for nothing. it's unseemly to have a queer daughter and to use her as political tool. Thanks Dick, for nothing. but it's also unseemly to overly emphasize that someone else has a queer daughter... Thanks John, for nothing on that one.

If it is low or not isn't the issue. The most lacking part of the entire episode was that Edwards brought it up and no one cared. Kerry did the same and everyone go crazy. Doesn't make much logical since to me.

It's not "outing" when the individual mentioned is already out of the closet. The practice of "outing" gays always leaves me uneasy.....doesn't every individual have a right to privacy? However, this doesn't apply in this case as Ms cheney has been openly gay for years.

I think Kerry's underlying point in mentioning Mary Cheney is that if you are going to go on record as wishing to deny rights to homosexuals, then you should be aware of the fact that homosexuality is not some stange foreign perversion: Even Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, and the Cheney's support her and her rights. What I found to be the most disgusting part of the whole episode was Lynne Cheney's selling out of her daughter by calling Kerry's remarks tawdry. This gives the impression that she finds her daughter's avowed lesbianism to be a perversion and Kerry's mention of it to be a dirty slam.

acknowledged...if you're sympathetic to the larger message, then it doesn't seem like an outing. but knowing the fundy types...it's largely going to be news to them. dick didn't exactly trumpet this to the world. and even if they did know...kerry is bringing it up as a wedge between them and bush. it strikes me that that's a negative use of mary's queer idenity, something closely akin to outing, IMO.

there's only one revision i would make to his comments. don't mention mary by name. other than that, he was spot on.

Context was everything in why the remark was inappropriate.

The question was about nature vs. nurture--what causes homosexuality. Bush said he didn't know.

Kerry's answer made me think that he had planned to mention Mary Cheney during the whole debate and was looking for the right time. Since it hadn't arisen yet, this might be his last time. The reason it appeared that way to me was his "if you ask Mary Cheney . . . " Instead of saying "if you ask . . . " he could have easily said "I've talked to Barney Frank and Elton John and Melissa Etheridge (insert names here) and . . . " I had no doubt that Kerry wanted to bring her up by name for a political reason, and that's why it was out of bounds.

If perhaps during a discussion of health care benefits, Bush had opined that treatment for the obese was something that the goverment shouldn't be paying for, what would have been the reaction if he said "If you ask Elizabeth Edwards, she'd tell you that pushing yourself away from the table is the first step". (Edwards has discussed her battle to keep the weight off.) There would be howls of protest for him putting words and thoughts into Mrs. Edwards' mouth (assuming she hadn't said the same thing). It was the "she'd say . . . " part that made the whole thing so blatantly political, and using someone's child in such a context just rubs many the wrong way.

why is this even an issue?

i dislike everything about conservative ideology--but that does not mean that i think people who subscribe to that ideology are completely subsumed by it as human beings---that they are incapable of differentiating public positions and personal life of talking one way about public matters while living very different lives beneath the surface----conservatives, like anyone diverse population, are often nice, loving people who happen to think the world through a series of premises i basically disagree with.

i see no contradiction whatsoever between people ascribing to a bizarre-o worldview and at the same time loving and accepting their children, even when that acceptance runs counter to the ideology.

nor do i see on what basis pointing out this distinction--by invoking mary cheney--- could be hurtful to cheney or bush. i really dont. if anything i imagine it would be helpful politically, in that it would point to the complexity that lay behind the conservative simplification of the world, even for those prominent within conservativeland.

on the other hand, it might function to point out the hypocrisy of the ideology--that you would have to make a distinction between public and private, that one set of prescriptions would hold for everyone else, but you yourself make exceptions, are flexible, etc etc etc,

maybe that is the problem.
and if the right sees this question in these terms, i can certainly see why they would squirm.
so squirm away.
but i do not see a cheap shot in it.