I don't know that I have a whole lot...
First, the furor over Kerry making lesbian family members of political opponents acceptable campaign fodder continues. I read much on it. If you want go here, here, or here. I saw this comment to a story on a "subsidiary" website: and deemed it better than anything I could think up on:
"When speaking on the need for a better health care system, Kerry could have used Elizabeth Edwards as an example of an America that is becoming too fat.
When talking about his family he could have mentioned that he has his problems raising teenagers -- "Hey look, my daughter went to France wearing a see-through dress." He might have even got a laugh line out of it.
He could have mentioned Al Gore's son who was busted for pot while speeding down the highway.
When talking about education Kerry could have mentioned sex education and used Andrew Sullivan as an example of gays who still insist on having unprotected sex with anonymous partners.
When talking about his religious beliefs, there was nothing stopping Kerry from acknowledging the kind heartedness of the Catholic Church for annulling a marriage that had produced 2 children.
When mentioning Cheney's daughter, Kerry could have just as easily provided equal time to Richard Gehphardt's lesbian daughter, and talked about the travails of Barney Frank and Frank's bf. He could even have mentioned Ronald Reagan's dear friend, Rock Hudson.
The only reason the Liberals are not claiming foul is because their hatred of George W. Bush far outweighs any sense of common decency that sane people have. I think it's funny that the only way they have of responding to this is to accuse conservatives of hating gays. You guys are so nuanced." by Anonymous (see it
Next. I wrote recently that I don't detest Democrats for their beliefs as much as I do for their tactics. It seems the latest vote fraud development has sent others over the edge. Read this post by Vodkapundit. Though our politics might coincide at times, something tells me that someone who describes themselves as a "political slut" wouldn't always be on the same side of a debate as myself. Either way, he's tired of the Demos "strategies".
Finally, apparently the NYTimes refuses even to give an Archbishop a fair shake. He states he was misquoted by the Times as they attempted to paint him as a Bush supporter. Which he denies...the also reminds that such a stance could cost the Catholic church a great deal (Tax-exempt status). I guess the Times checked with Mary Beth Cahill and found out that shaping quotes of religious leaders for political reasons is "fair game".