Now I don't mind if a government official swears, but if you are in a heated argument with someone, and you break down and tell the person you are debating with to "Shut Up" you've pretty much lost the argument. I think it's more telling of the level of frustration that the administration has right now, I can't believe in this day and age anyone really has a problem with someone using the "F-Word" in public.

However, if I'm trying to get my point across to someone at work, and I find myself telling them to "shut up" that's an indication to me that I'm not doing my job of getting my point across, and I am most definitely in the wrong in that situation. Unfortuantely, I would find myself in the position to apologize for losing my temper.

Because this argument is entrenched in politics, it's too easy for those here to try to take a side. Let's say this same argument happened with two people at work? How would you react? Even if I was routing for the person who broke down and dropped the F-Bomb, I'd be mad at them since they couldn't take the heat, and basically lost the argument for my side.

I see it differently, CJ. If Cheney had been standing at the podium making a speech, or in his official capacity in Session and had said this to Leahy, I would have been calling for his resignation. But this was personal interaction between two people - a side bar conversation - that no one heard but Leahy's assistants - who then leaked the story.

What two men say to each other in private is one thing. How they address the public is something totally different.

This conversation made me think about the reaction from some here at AD to another incident that happened on the House floor not too long ago. One Representative called another a "fruitcake" and a "starts with a c ends with ucker".

Anyway, thanks for the debate!

I also agree with Eeyore points. I don't mind the use of this language by our public officials at all. However, Cheney's usage of the word does seem to be more offensive than Kerrys use (In my opinion).

Whether or not it matters if it is said privately or publicly is a subjective concern, really. If you consider the word to be bad, its just as bad publicly as it is privately.

Is it appropriate for the Vice President of the United States to use such language, outside the fact that it was directed towards a Senator on the Senate floor?
Sure. Why not? A Vice President - or President or member of Congress who doesn't use such language is probably inhuman. Inside the fact that it was directed towards a Senator on the Senate floor, however, it was entirely inappropriate. There is no comparison here with Kerry's Rolling Stone interview. Describing a policy as "messed up", so to speak, is nothing at all like telling someone to - well, is there anything worse which one human being can say to another in the English language?

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)
I'm not sure what would be acceptable, but what would conform to the Senate rules would be the expulsion of the offending member - by a 2/3 majority vote. In other words, had the Senate been in session, nothing would have happened - except fewer people would have been able to rush to the Vice President's defense on the grounds of a "public" vs. a "private" audience.

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?
Nah. To what end? His actions - and words - speak for themselves.

This is all so much partisan bickering over very little. Those who dislike Leahy will feel that Cheney's comment was entirely appropriate. Those who dislike Cheney will feel that his comment was entirely inappropriate. Those who dislike Bush's Iraqi policy will feel that his comment was entirely appropriate. Those who support Bush's Iraqi policy will feel that his comment was entirely inappropriate. I think we should all just agree to disagree - and agree that we're all just a tad hypocritical.

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?
OK, this is a stretch, but I thought it was funny. I guess Yankee fans reprimanded him in their own way:

I wonder if he told them all to go #!@* themselves?

I have to say that I find this a non issue.

In light of the fact that this is the only time we have heard of Cheney using a vulgarity in response to another lawmaker, I find this a non issue. Now, if he used such intemperate speech all the time, we might have an issue. But one slip in the passion of the moment? Yep, a non issue.

The time Kerry did it, however, is completely different. He did it on the campaign trail. Now that is an issue. That shows he cannot take the pressure even in his controlled campaign appearances. It shows he cannot control himself.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point cognito ergo sum.

If there's any politician with a marked proclivity for "controlled campaign appearances" it's our potty-mouthed Vice-President. He has a fondess for photo-ops where he doesn't have to speak directly and spontaneously to the public and fund-raisers before friendly conservative audiences.

"One slip in the passion of the moment?" Please. Let's not be disingenuous. Chaney knew precisely what he was saying when he said it.

The way Cheney's apologists see it, the Veep could have spat in Senator Leahy's face and that would be okay because Leahy deserved it. Apparently in a election year everything is fair game to be exploited for partisan political gain--even common decency, civility and good manners.

There was a time when conservatives used to expouse "family values." Telling someone to fornicate himself is not a family value. Maybe around your dinner table but not mine.

What? The campaign trial......

Let's revisit some facts.

Kerry dropped it in an interview for ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE. That magazine targets the 18-35 male demographic. Every issue of RS that I possess contains THAT WORD.

To say that it is ok for Cheney to use the word as a "slip of the tongue" is FINE. But don't try to say that Kerry's use was worse.

From my point of view Kerry swore in a whore house, and the people that heard it at the time didn't blink. It is how people speak in RS.

Cheney cursed in a church. Now that really does not bother me, as I have sworn in church MANY times.

Both of you are wholly wrong. I don't think either usage is perfectly "OK". But Kerry did it in a passionless, rational state of mind in an interview. Cheney did it in the fit of a passionate reply to a person who has been partisanly dogging him for years! And Cheney said it to a man who he had treated with the proper respect for four years (even though such respect was not returned).

If you cannot see the difference than I would submit that both of you are employing a favor for your side just as you accuse me of doing! Sorry, but a close look at the facts of the two uses gives only one of the two men any kind of excuse. Cheney for a human fit of passion. Kerry had no excuse what so ever.

But, and I reiterate, the use of such langiage is always a mistake, regardless.

By the way, Mule. You tell me not to excuse Cheney, yet you excuse Kerry? What gives?

Kerry used the word during an interview with a Rolling Stone reporter. He was describing something he found reprehensible, and yes, the way he used it was less passionate than the way Cheney used it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35997

Cheney used it against Senator Leahy. He used it personally. How does this show more control than the way Kerry used it? Which is more hurtful, to use the F-bomb as a verb in an article or to throw it like a cow pie at someone?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5289848

They were both wrong using the F-bomb. But I've got to tell you, this does not represent a major criterion I use to determine the fitness of a candidate for national public office.

So, can we now put these two incidents behind us and focus on the issues?

Passion. There's that word again. And that makes it all better? That justifies a direct insult?

I can curse you out but it's okay if I do it with passion? I can use a four letter word that we can't use on this board, but if I say it with passion, it's okay? I can treat you like dirt and emit a slur that would be considered fighting words in most places, but say it with passion and it's all good?

Please. I don't think I'm "wholly wrong." I think you are condoning boorish behavior because you have a high tolerance for profanity when it's directed by a Republican to a Democrat.

You're going to have to offer some proof, and not just your opinion congito ergo sum that Senator Leahy has been "partisanly dogging" Cheney and that Cheney has treated the Senator with "the proper respect" that was not reciprocated. Gee. Why is that? Because the Senator was impolite enough to wonder what connection the Veep might have with Haliburton and their profiteering in Iraq? How rude!

Vice President Dick Cheney says he "felt better" after he showered Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with profanity the other day at what was supposed to be a light-hearted photo session. That's good to know. A portly 63-year-old man who already has suffered four heart attacks can't afford to be carrying around too much repressed anger.

But "go f--- yourself" isn't a very edifying response to the legitimate questions Leahy and others have raised about the no-bid contracts and overcharges associated with the Iraq work of Halliburton, the company Cheney headed before becoming vice president. Leahy is no partisan bomb thrower. He is a dignified, collegial senator who has chosen his words carefully in raising such issues as the no-bid contract, worth as much as $7-billion, Halliburton received last year to help rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. A recently released Army e-mail shows that Cheney "coordinated" action related to the contract, despite his earlier assurances that he would not involve himself in any government business with his former company. If Cheney has a better explanation for that apparent conflict of interest than the one he gave Leahy, he hasn't offered it in public.

Cheney wasn't just having a bad day. He, President Bush and some other top administration officials have a bad habit of giving ill-tempered - and sometimes inaccurate - answers to fair questions

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/30/Opinion/...r_Baghdad.shtml

Dick Cheney is a evil, foul-mouthed, vulgar little toad. Period. Maybe he should take his own advice and do what he suggested the Senator should do.

There! Now I "feel better" too.

You are quite the twister, aren't you? In fact, I’d rather say that, if you do not condone intemperate language in fits of passion, your last post should be condemned.

I did NOT condone either of them using the word (and you cannot show that I did). All I said is that at least Cheney did it in a moment of high passion which makes him quite human. Tell me? Did you never utter a quick curse in a moment of passion? If you say no, then I will have to say I don’t believe you in any way what so ever.

If you can focus here, the reason that Kerry’s usage was worse is because he used such language in what was supposed to be a rational, straight forward interview! Do you think that using a profanity in an interview is the same as letting one slip in a high passion situation? If you do, then you are not very knowledgeable about human nature.

The fact that Kerry used a profanity in a campaigning situation and used the word as a matter of course, if a far, far different thing than accidentally using one when you are mad!

I would say that you should condemn Kerry far more than you would Cheney … except that you are partisan and have let your hatred get the better of you. As your posts to me have proven.

Hmm cogito ergo sum can you please show that Kerry during his interview was not mad and let it slip if you can not then this point of yours is mute. You can't have it one way for one person and another for the other person. Please either say they both right or both wrong.

Whoa.....kettle's black again.

So what you are saying is that Kerry was in total control when he used the word WHILE ADDRESSING A CROWD THAT COMMONLY USES THAT WORD (He was speaking to the readers of Rolling Stone.)

....and that Cheney is UNABLE to control himself while on the Senate floor.

I'll go along with that assessment.

What I cannot go along with is the same interpretations of these 2 facts.

Here is a link that I ran by Jamie, I hope it is appropriate. It is from my local paper, and I think can be a very amusing, light-hearted way to conclude this debate.

I hope that you find it as amusing as I did:
Potty Mouthed Politics

There's a time and a place. The floor of Congress certainly is NOT the place. Rolling Stone would seem to be a more appropriate place, whether or not you feel that Kerry should have used the profanity.

Nighttimer's description slays me (and it's right on the mark):

Now, see, there's an extremely descriptive statement of someone loathsome, that uses no profanity whatsoever. If he'd said Cheney was a nasty mo'fo' (spelled out of course), would it have had the same impact? I don't think so.

Mule-that link is absolutely priceless. I was laughing out loud in my work cube. Thanks for the laugh!

Glad you enjoyed it Daffy. The author is a very amusing writer. I have emailed him this Debate thread, and asked him to join AD, as I think that he would very much enjoy the people in here, and I would love to see his contributions in this forum. Keep your eyes out for a new contributor from Bend.

Happy 4th of July to all

GM

But isn't that exactly what is happening on this thread? People are excusing Kerry while saying Cheney was wrong.

In my opinion they are both wrong.

Why are we (we here at AD) applying a different standard to Kerry on this issue?

Edited to add: And to those doing just the opposite, isn't that also wrong? If it was wrong for Kerry, it's wrong for Cheney. Cadman, is right, it can't be both ways.

Because we are looking at context, and not the context of political parties.

Using your logic there is no difference between me cursing someone out in the hallway of say a university residence, and me walking down a friendly neighbourhood street where children are at play. I see a substantive difference.

A) The expectations of the speaker are entirely different
The audience is entirely different.

Now, you would suggest that it doesn't matter. I don't see how. Picking and choosing which contextual layers are appropriate for a discussion of values seems like a silly approach.



So intending to be crass and hostile in a hallowed and revered setting is somehow less offensive than intending to be casual and surprising in a forum that regularly displays that sort of language? That doesn't make sense to me.

Good question, Beladonna. Perhaps this demonstrates the "advantages" there are to being a part of the ABB crowd. You see, by only being against someone, one doesn't feel the need to defend their opponent. So we see people getting all kind of offended at Cheney's remarks, yet remaining basically silent on Kerry's remarks. Implicit there is the, "I don't really support Kerry, I just hate Bush so I don't need to defend Kerry" mindset. It's pretty convienent.

Joe,

I don't think I've ever said what you are implying. I have tried to be consistent. Both are wrong. Both men are representatives of this country and as such should not be using such language.

My argument about this issue is in regards to private and public settings. What a person does in private IS different, although that doesn't make it right.

The ONLY reason this made it into the public spotlight is because Leahy's assistants told reporters. This was a private conversation between two people, overheard by two other people. It was not a public debate. It was not a public interview. It was not posted on an official Presidential candidate's web site.

In my opinion, Kerry and Cheney are both wrong and I'd like right leaning people to take a stand and admit that Cheney was wrong as much as I'd like left leaning people to stand up and say that Kerry was wrong.

Actually I see it the other way around, as I stated earlier in the thread:



However, there have been plenty of instances in this thread where Cheny is excused from this behavior and Kerry is criticized for it or vise versa. This has happened with people from both sides of the political spectrum.

But my viewpoint of "I don't care if you curse like a sailor" aside, I think that Nighttimer and UltimateJoe make the most convincing arguments here if we are going to say one person was wrong and not the other which partisan logic would have us do.

Ah, now I see. The temporary insanity defense.

Nice.

As I look back at Government Mule's question that he poised originally I don't see a question as to whether John Kerry's usage of the f-word was worse than Dick Cheney dropping f-bombs on the floor of the Senate. However, through an uncanny act of political jiu-jitsu, we've been drawn into a not-so-great debate on that very subject.

It seems to me Aquilla it's primarily the board conservatives that have remained silent on Cheney's remarks. As for the tedious, but now familiar allegation about "hating Bush" I think you were the one to blow up that particular balloon.

So instead you have to resort to a dodge, a head fake that what Kerry said in Rolling Stone about an Iraq policy that polls indicate most Americans agreed was FUBAR (fouled up beyond all recognition) is somehow JUST AS BAD as Cheney swearing at a U.S. Senator. This transparently weak comparison is like a fat man in a thong: It's barely covering up the naughtiness and it leaves way too much exposed. In this case, an attempt to make an argument of equivalency where none exists.

That's why Belladonna, your contention is a dog that won't hunt. A offhand remark (or maybe it was deliberate, I don't know) by Kerry in a magazine which regularly uses the F-word is not the same thing as a direct and deliberate insult from one man to another.

And here I thought "Defending the Indefensible" was another thread entirely. Looks like it's morphed into a virulent new form where potty-mouth Vice Presidents get a pass for their profane speech.

Yet I understand that you can't really defend Cheney's surly attitude. You certainly can't defend the word he used without being issued a strike and sending the profanity filter into overload. You can't even explain it to a kid without using a euphemism.

cognito ergo sum, I won't dignify your personal attack with a reply.

My contention? You mean my contention that both men are wrong?



And hardline Kerry supporters defend, nay, revel in their candidates use of the word as if it's a badge of honor. Kerry's use of the word was the appropriate thing to do - a requirement, right? I mean after all, it was a magazine that prints vulgarities, so Kerry had an obligation.



I have no desire or stake in defending Cheney's actions. I have stated as clearly as I can that what Cheney did was wrong.

It is you who has defended Kerry.

I bid this thread adieu. It's been interesting to say the least.

It takes an extremely selective reading of my posts in this thread to make the leap in logic that I am a "hardline Kerry supporter" who "revels in their candidates use of the word as if it's a badge of honor" and that I have "defended" Kerry.

First things first. I'm not a hardline supporter of John Kerry. At this point I freely admit that I would--as a friend of mine put it---vote for a chicken sandwich over Dubya. That doesn't make me a Kerry groupie. In the state primary I voted for John Edwards.

Second, I've gone back and reread all my posts in this thread and unless you're using an extremely liberal (another naughty word, I know) interpretation--or just plain partisan bias---in no way have I "defended" Kerry's usage of the f-word in Rolling Stone. What I wrote was that conservatives have strained to draw a parallel between his remark in a magazine and Cheney's direct insult to another person.

And no, Belladonna, it wasn't the appropriate thing to do or a "requirement" to appear in Rolling Stone that you've got to use the F-word. However, I've conducted enough interviews to know that there are times that the subject will say something that might cause potential embarassment later. Some will say, "Hey, I shouldn't have said that. Leave that out." Unless they have said specifically that a remark is off the record it's up to that reporter and their editor if the word or words come out or stay in. In this case, Rolling Stone does not censor obscentites and the word stayed in. That's a case of editorial judgment and possibly Kerry shooting from the lip. But it hardly disqualifies him from being the next President of the United States as some conservatives would have it.

All of this has little to do with my assertion that the right being unable to defend Cheney has chosen instead to divert the focus into, "Well, Kerry's use of the F-word was just as bad, if not worse."

Nice try. Not nice enough though.