Given Scowcroft's career and his relationship with Bush I, this is actually a very huge story.

I am sure that this will be Topic A on the Sunday talk shows.

No wait, it will be the platoon that is under arrest for refusing to follow orders that they believe would have been suicide to follow.

No wait, it will be the government negligence in creating the flu vaccine shortage.

No wait, it will be the bold attacks inside the Green Zone as evidence that the situation in Iraq is continuing to deteriorate despite what Bush and Allawi are saying.

No wait, it will be the most recent jobs report and the dismal outlook of virtually every economist.

No wait, it will be the crushing deficit and the inevitable tax increases and program cuts that will be required to reduce it.

No wait, it will be the president of Iraq starting to back off of the scheduled date for Iraq elections.

No, really, seriously, we all know this, it will be Mary Cheney and the Outraged Parents.

Anybody wanna take a bet on this?

James comment is dead on.

Not only is James comment dead on but if Scowcroft had come out and strongly defended Junior that would have been major topic on the Sunday Talk Shows and he might even have been a guest on all of them.

James is correct. The tabloid media will be all over the Mary Cheney blunder Kerry made, and it was a major blunder, and not one word about Snowcroft or Bush's absurd response to the jobs question. Kerry has to recognize that the media is looking for reasons to jump all over him to avoid jumping all over Bush.

Major blunder? Mary Cheney is a grown woman, that is running her father's re-election campaign and is fair game because of it. The fact that she's OUT does not speak well of her closeted mom's outrage who's probably envious and resentful of Mary.

RAMON, I have heard the fair game argument before and it doesn't stick with me. Her sexuality is simply not germane to anything useful. I thought Edward's daliance with the subject during the VP debate was ill-advised, but at least it didn't blow up in his face. What was Kerry's stunt worth? He handed the opposition something to whail about for three days clouding every other issue out of the way. And for what?

If I was a public figure and someone made some painfully articulated comments describing me as an overt heteosexual, I would raise an eyebrow or two. Especially if the person was going out of the way to say, "not that it is a big deal or anything." I seriously wonder what the hell the point is they were trying to make.

Meanwhile, what I did not see during any of the debates was anybody responsibly address the Israeli question. The key to the Mideast is not Iraq, but an independent Palestine. Sharon foolishly strode into Temple Mount a while back, and the civilized world has had hell to pay for his hubris.

This President has done nothing but mouth empty words while the extremist elements of Islam grew more bold. Sharon's strategy seems to be one of slow attrition. Is this going to be our strategy? Will any American president ever be able to advance a reputable foreign policy again in our lifetime? What is Kerry going to do once Arabs in Gaza start to go hungry in their isolation? Will he support them, or keep idly dreaming lesbian fantasies.

Ramon
It was a major blunder not because anything he said was wrong but because it was predictably something the media would jump on rather than discussing the real issues. This is something Kerry must be on the look out for. There were many lost opportunities because of the Mary Cheney statement.

I have heard the fair game argument before and it doesn't stick with me. Her sexuality is simply not germane to anything useful.

Look, you must remember the context. The question was put directly to Kerry: "Is homosexuality a choice?" His inclusion of Mary Cheney in his answer was clearly germane.

He presented Cheney as anecdotal proof that it's not a choice--that is, that her lesbianism is not a marker of wickedness, but is precisely the way God made her.

"Fair game" has nothing to do with it, because the comment was specifically intended to be both pro-gay and pro-Cheney.

The only way that this can seem like an attack is if one buys into the bigoted notion that mentioning gay sexual identity is a smear per se. Since Kerry's entire point was that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of, it's pretty much ridiculous to cast about looking for an attack justification. It wasn't an attack.

Major blunder? I don't think so. I don't even think it was a blunder.

What we are dealing with is not a Kerry blunder, nor is it some Brilliant Tactic of the Bush/Rove smear machine. It is the corporate press/media, and the deliberate decisions of the reporters, editors and news directors (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the SCLM.")

When the Republicans push their talking points, and they push them every day, the SCLM has a decision to make: run with it or not.

The Republicans have been pushing various talking points against John Kerry since March, as soon as it became clear that he would be the nominee. But let's just look at the post-debate talking points.

First debate: FlipFlop & Global Test.

VP debate: Can't stand up to Howard Dean & First time I met you was tonight.

Second debate: Global Test & Most Liberal Senator. (Anti-Kerry points were somewhat muted by B/C04's need to scream "Bush is back")

Third debate: Mary Cheney.

Now look at all these talking points from the debate, add in whichever ones I forgot or overlooked, and ask yourself, why did the SCLM decide to make Mary Cheney such a big story?

Could it be because not one of the earlier Republican talking points got any traction? Could it be because the earlier Republican talking points were either gross distortions of what Kerry said (global test) or simply untrue (most liberal senator)?

Could it be because, after failing to lay a glove on Kerry/Edwards for the fourth consecutive debate that Bush/Cheney desperately needed help to stop Kerry's momentum? Could it be that the SCLM has an interest in stopping Kerry's momentum?

What is telling about the SCLM treatment of these post-debate talking points is that the one they made the biggest deal about is the one that has absolutely nothing to do with any significant policy difference between the candidates, one that has no implications for how our lives, and the lives of people around the world, will be affected by this election.

Weak-hearted Democrats lament this as a Kerry "blunder" and go so far as to suggest that he apologize. They are wrong and they should be quiet and devote their energies to GOTV.

Desperate Republicans pound this because they have absolutely nothing good to say about the performance of Bush or Cheney in the debates, and absolutely nothing in the record of the Bush/Cheney administration to cite as a reason why they should be elected.

The SCLM is running with this Mary Cheney thing because they know if they don't, the election is effectively over.

Whose votes is Cheney trying to get? Certainly not his moral, self-righteous, right wing base. I don't think this will get Bush any votes. Certainly not any from the "radical homosexual interests."