Not sure how old this is, but I just noticed it:

Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/...eahy/index.html

In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."

Using profanity on the Senate floor while the Senate is session is against the rules. But the Senate was technically not in session at the time and the normal rules did not apply, a Senate official said.

The Vice President would have been BANNED in this forum.

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?

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?

I remember we had a thread a few months back about Kerry swearing. Some people were really lit up about that, I wonder if they will bring their indignation with them this time?



This problem is bigger than Dick Cheney. Take a look at the senate floor records, and you will find eloquent, sophisticated debates between the likes of Calhoun and Webster. The latter was just marvelous at destroying the opposition's argument, and not the individuals of the opposition. Unfortunately, partisanship and bitter attacks have replaced any desire for the dignity of the office that is senator.



Normal rules do apply to him, he does after all, preside over the senate! You can find penalties for such behavior at this link from the U.S. Senate website.

“A frank exchange of views” – that’s rich. I’ll have to use that excuse the next time I lose my temper and cuss someone out.

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?

Of course it’s not appropriate; just as it wouldn’t be appropriate for any of us to use that kind of language with a co-worker.

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?

These two questions kind of go together. I don’t know if reprimand and punishment are even indicated; to me it’s kind of a silly thing to get excited about. So the guy's a foul-mouthed jerk - if only that was the worst of his offenses...

This is a ridiculous controversy.

He simply got caught talking like we know they all talk. Thre is no surprise here and we shouldn't act like we are. The house wasn't in session, so he was bound by no rules.

The REAL story is, is how this promoted Bush being a "uniter" versus a "divider". This defintely flies in the face of that.

I think the Cheney should be given a pass on this one. If swearing decreases his stress level, then that's a good thing. Having him keel over on the Senate floor because he held it in check can't be good for anyone particularly his cybernetic heart .

Ok, now I'll give my thoughts.

Who cares.

I am a 30 something male, and this kind of language doesn't effect me all that much. To address Nebraska's Kerry point, if some said that I "effed things up" as Kerry did say, the word is an expressive verb. Kerry did not tell the President to........(please see the Cheney quote above) Had Kerry told the President THAT, then I would have a very different impression of Kerry.

Nebraska, I think that you can see the difference in the 2 quotes, not saying that the use of the word is appropriate in either case. But there is a big difference.

I just find it funny, ironic, sad, that the Bush campaign is running on the Evangelical band wagon, and I have to think that a majority of people that DO support them from the Religious right would be absolutely SHOCKED at hearing this. Again, for me, he's a big boy, and he doesn't offend me one bit. But I am not a God fearing member of the right.

Punishment?
He should have his mouth washed out with soap by Lori Thomas.

Like I said in a thread titled "Kerry's Gutter Mouth":

I could care less if Kerry or Bush are accidentally caught saying a curse word when they thought the mike was off, or if they curse like a sailor around their staff, or around their family, etc.

I do not want them using that language in a public setting where they represent me and the USA.

Ya know, this could go hand-in-hand with the "FCC indecency" debate. Sure, he wasn't broadcast on TV, but Cheney was quite the champion of indecent behavior on TV. I mean, at least on television, you can change the channel or turn it off.

Gratuitous vulgarity removed - this isn't the Senate I don't really much care what he says. Virtually everybody uses profanity at some point. Maybe I should charge him a million dollars for his indecent behavior.

I don't see the big deal. Yes, losing his temper may have been an infraction if congress were in session, but it would surely be a very minor one.
All this serves to do is to demonstrate the churlishness of Cheney, any attempt to make anything more out of it is just childish "gotcha" game playing.

I stand by the same answer I gave when it was Kerry using the F word in a Rolling Stones interview. I'm an adult, I can take it.

However, I do find it funny that some people who were outraged last time will look silly having to eat their words this time in order to give Cheney a pass.

Technically, like everything else, since the senate was not in session the rule about cursing on the senate floor does not apply to Cheney...gotta love those technicalities, huh Dick?

The only two poeple that really took up on Kerry's swearing were Beledona and Amlord- and they both qualified that statement with "if he doesn't know the mike is hot," statement

Amlord posted this about Kerry:

Dice Clay for President!!

We are not electing a Pope, but the President should be held to a higher standard (in public). In private (which, Bush's and Nixon's comments could be considered private, although the became public), I couldn't care less.

The links/articles on Kerry's website could not be posted on AD. Are we all saints? No Does AD expect everyone to be a papal candidate? No. But AD expects all participants to maintain a certain level of decorum. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the President (or future President) to live up to at least the standard of being postable on AD.


So will this standard hold to Cheney?

Here is DeerJerkyDaves comment on Kerry's cursing:

The saying comes to mind "Profanity is a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully."

With that said, profanity is not presidential because the president is looked up to as a role model by parents and children. The president of the United States should be a great leader, and not just a leader. Rosalynn Carter once said "A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be." So, in other words, I believe it is the president's job to promote, elevate, inspire, and edify Americans to a higher plain of existence.

But I think Beladona put it in best context in that debate:

No one is arguing that there aren't more important issues that should be discussed and for that matter only a minimal number of people might cast a vote based on language. But, that isn't the point of this discussion.

Using curse words as part of your vocabulary in a public setting is NOT appropriate for a person running for President of the United States of America, for the President of the United States, or for any person representing this country.

I am just having a hard time believing that some of you think it appropriate language for our President to use in public.

I stand by my earlier comments: this language is not appropriate in a public forum.

It could be argued that Cheney's comments were private. He was not giving a speech, ging an interview or posting to a campaign website. The Senate was not in session. They were posing for a picture.

I won't split hairs though: it is reasonable to assume that this exchange would become public. It happened in a public place, the Senate floor.

It is unbecoming for Cheney to use such language in reference to another public figure (Senator Leahy).

Cruising Ram,

Exactly what was the point of your post?

And why do you insist on misspelling my name?

No, it's not appropriate. But four-letter words are a part of the language. Cheney's choice of words, as in Kerry's case, reflected a sense of anger and frustration that was not adequately addressed by more proper vocabulary selections.

So Cheney doesn't walk on water--this is news? Neither does Dubya or Kerry. Big deal.



I dunno. Write letters of apology to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and Bob Jones III and then write 50 times on a chalkboard, "I will not use potty mouth in the Senate"?



This really is making a mountain out of a molehill. How about reprimanding Cheney for refusing to divulge to the American public just who attended his Energy Task Force meeting and causing time and money to be spent on having it argued before the Supreme Court and his buddy Justice Antonin Scalia? Isn't that just a wee bit more important than using the F-bomb?

Let the Fundamentalist and Evangelical backers of the Republican party stew over it. I'm sure the cards and letters are coming in already.

The regurgitated and more sanitized "frank exchange of views" made-for-FCC-TV version cracked me up.

The Vice President would have been BANNED in this forum.

At first offense he'd get a strike.

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?

It isn't appropriate in public regardless of who/what is the focus of the politician's rant.

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)

But the Senate wasn't in session. The question doesn't really apply. If anyone cares enough, is mentally scarred enough to look up the rules they can do it on their own. I won't help validate anyone's fantasies about sending Dick to the corner on what if scenarios and plausibilities.

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?

A public apology or written statement would be enough but it doesn't look like it'll happen:



This is speculation on my part. Considering the Jeffords debacle that turned power over to Democrats, and with it Daschle's witch hunt countdown, I wouldn't be surprised if Leahy had a desired outcome. As the Fox News article suggests, proprieties between both parties, and perhaps moral, is at a low point.

* * * * *

In other news... I can't believe GeorgeWBush.com's latest web video on the front page (This is not a time for pessimism and rage...), but I want to thank them for tossing in clips of Gore's speech. I hadn't seen it--bad, bad Democrat, Lesly!--and was very impressed. It must've been uploaded late last night or today.

The video is a mismatched clips of Gore, Hitler compared to Bush (by a moveon.org contestant), Dean, Moore, Gephardt, Hitler again, Gore again, and finally what appears to be the video's raison d'être... enter stage left Democratic presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry--cursing.

What an original comeback. How provocative.

How droll.

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?


I'm not one to make a big deal out of something like this, because I don't consider using profanity to be a bad thing necessarily. Cheny was expressing an emotion and he chose to do it in that way, I've done that in the past too. I don't think it is necessarily the most mature or productive way to express that emotion, but I don't hold Cheny to some special standard regarding profanity that I wouldn't hold myself to. He may be a politician with some power, but he is still human.

I make an effort not to use it when I'm discussing things in a professional setting, but sometimes an f-bomb or two can slip out, it happens.

What I do have a problem with is hypocrites, and certain people in this administration wouldn't let something like this slide if it had been say John Kerry that did this.

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?

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?

I think it was inappropriate for the VP to use such language directed at a Senator. It was disrespectful of the Senate, his office, and the Senator he directed it at. We are all human, though, and curses are bound to pass our lips from time to time so, to be frank, I don't really care if he curses or not. It probably happens more often then we know and Cheney just got caught.

Not really sure what kind of punishment as I see that type behavior more as a character trait and his inability to control his temper.

I don't think a reprimand is in order, but I certainly hope he apologizes to the Senate and specifically the Senator he cursed out.

It is not the worst thing to happen, but I think it is unfortunate that Cheney has to continue to attack Leahy and stand by his conduct instead of remembering the location and role from which his verbal attack came from. It was unbecoming. It would be forgivable. Unfortunately Cheney is defending himself instead of apologizing.

Kevin Kellems, a spokesman for the vice president, said, "That doesn't sound like the kind of language that the vice president would use, but I can confirm that there was a frank exchange of views."

Yeah, a frank exchange of views like that would get your butt thrown off America's Debate.

But this is just in line with the kind trash-talking macho crap that the chickenhawk frat boys of this Administration spew with disgusting frequency. This is par for the course. It was during the last election that Dubya was overhead saying to Cheney that a reporter from the New York Times was an euphemism for the human rectum.

Maybe Senator Leahy made a joke about Cheney's lesbian daughter? Where is C-SPAN when we need it?

When you add Cheney's churlish refusal to apologize for his potty-mouth, it only reinforces the notion that he really does live up to his first name.

My goodness sakes! Such "outrage" here by people who then, in some cases a least use the fact that the Vice President's first name is Richard to sneak around the rules of this forum to engage in a rather crude form of name-calling. Quite clever.

I guess part of the job of the Vice President is to do the job that nobody else wants to do, and quite frankly, it's about time someone told that pompous donkey (Democratic party symbol) from Vermont what to do. This nation would be far better off if Leahy would take the VP's suggestion and spend his time figuring out just how to do that instead of obstructing the people's business in the US Senate.

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?

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?



1. - Not, it probably wasn't appropriate, shame on Cheney, no dessert tonight for him.

2. - Irrelevant, the Senate wasn't in session.

3. - It seems to me that people all over the place, at least in this thread are "reprimanding him" for his comments. Heck, they are even calling him names. I think that's punishment enough.

I'll see if I can use my extensive GOP influence here and send a letter to Cheney. I would like him to tell my 2 senators, Feinstein and Boxer what to do with themselves.....

I think Dick should continue to cuss on. It is refreshing. Call me the worse and most crass of Americans, but I have always been disgusted people who try to be "above" cuss words. I always feel people like that can't be trusted. Don't get me wrong, all the cussing in the world wouldn't make me trust a man like Dick Cheney, but cussing isn't a bad thing, IMO.

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?

Last I checked he is an adult so yes it is appropriate to use it to me. Each person must decide for themselves what is and isn't appropriate

Had the Senate been in session, what punishment would be acceptable for breaking the rules? (normal rules did not apply?)

It's a word

Should Cheney be reprimanded for his comments? If so, by who, and how?

Again, it's a word

In an afterthought, does it surprise us that our politicians are so untrustworthy, when we the people are constantly pressuring them to be so fake?

This is just another example of how Bush (through his administration) fails at being a uniter not a divider. Not that they ever really had anyone fooled. Maybe this is how they think changing the discourse is done...it's changing it all right.

Is that what I was doing??

This isn't all Cheney's fault. They are both in the wrong here. Leahy has been attacking Cheney personally, calling his personal character into question by suggesting that Cheney helped Halibuton win contracts and then has the audacity to walk up to Cheney all chummy like as if it's all part of some game.

I think Cheney has every right to confront Leahy and I think Leahy had a legitimate complaint against Cheney with regard to the "bad Catholic" statement.

I don't appreciate what Cheney said to Leahy, but I also don't appreciate Leahy's attempt to discredit Cheney. Cheney could have gotten his point across in a less offensive way. He should have taken the high road.

Let's lay the blame where it belongs - at the feet of Cheney and Leahy.

I'm going to attempt to be consistent here and adhere to in June what I said back in March when it was the conservatives getting their undies in a bunch over the purported foul words found on John Kerry's website.

Salty language by grown men is nothing to get excited about. Except during an election year it appears.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=5650&st=0

By the way, Aquilla, if Dick Cheney were as witty as I am he'd find a less crude way to insult Senator Leahy. But alas---apparently Dick isn't.

And Belladonna, you're contorting yourself into a Gordian Knot trying to spin this as if Senator Leahy is on the same shaky moral footing as Dick is. It's the job of the Senate to provide some oversight and monitoring into the activities of the Executive Branch. That includes when there's an appearance of impropriety in the exclusive awarding of unbid contracts to a company that the Veep was the once the CEO of.

On the other hand, I do not want a man representing this country…representing me, if he uses and condones the use of obscenities in his public life. (3/10/04)

People who think Kerry’s cursing in a public setting as appropriate baffle me. I wonder if they cannot differentiate between a public and private setting. See, I could care less if Kerry or Bush are accidentally caught saying a curse word when they thought the mike was off, or if they curse like a sailor around their staff, or around their family, etc.

The entire point here is that Kerry chose to use what many, MANY people consider a vulgar word in an interview with the press. Are those who so strongly defend him seriously telling us that his use of that word did not bother you at all? You don’t mind that the world is watching and the Democratic Party candidate is dropping f bombs as if they are a normal part of his vocabulary?

He or his staff chose to litter his official web site with what many consider foul language. Is that OK with you? Is that what you want people around this country and the world to see?

I sure hope that is not what I am hearing some of you say. Is it so hard to put aside the need to defend the Democratic Party’s candidate and stand up for just the smallest amount of decency?

Is it so hard so say, I like all his policies but his official web site should reflect some professionalism and he shouldn’t drop the f bomb in press interviews?

It must be. (3/11/04)

Using curse words as part of your vocabulary in a public setting is NOT appropriate for a person running for President of the United States of America, for the President of the United States, or for any person representing this country. (emphasis addded) (3/11/04)

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=5650&st=30

What's changed in your thinking since March, Belladonna? Is foul language directed at someone as a personal insult somehow justifiable as opposed to being found on a campaign web site? Or is just okay when it's done by a Republican directed at a Democrat?

Whatever happened to statemanship? On BOTH sides of the aisle.

I am at a loss as to how you think my stance has changed on this issue.

It's not his cursing that really riles me, it's his arrogant response to being called on it. He is now saying his comment was 'long overdue' and that he 'felt better' for saying it. He also seems to be under the impression that a lot of people who heard him agreed with what he said. Is he trying to look like an unprofessional jerk or does it just come natural?

Not to personalize this into a Belladonna vs. Nighttimer thing, but I believe you expressed quite passionately a few months ago how inappropriate the language on Senator Kerry's web site was.

Why should a insult that the Vice-President of the United States personally directed to the Senator from Vermont somehow be any less so? Okay, so Cheney isn't sorry he said it. That speaks volumes about his character or lack of.

However, if he didn't want to accept Leahy's handshake he could have just turned his back or waved his hand away. That still would have been boorish, but a bit less so than inviting a U.S. Senator to perform an anatomical impossibility upon himself.

I wonder if those that see "no harm/no foul" in that insult or that Leahy deserved it, would be so blase if the Senator had said those same words to the Vice-President?

Wrong is wrong and a "F" bomb is wrong no matter who uses it.

Let's put it this way: If using that word can get you thrown off America's Debate why should it be okay to use in the United States Senate?

It seems to me that Leahy was performing his role as a Senator in asking for an investigation into the connections between Cheney and Halliburton,. In fact, the fact that Cheney had the audacity to try confront Leahy on this issue shows how involved he does get on behalf of Halliburton.

Cheney still receives income from Halliburton. There is evidence that he got directly involved with decisions about the awarding of contracts to Halliburton, contrary to prior claims. Halliburton has not acted very well in its contracts in Iraq and has repeatedly shown up in the news.

Cheney should be staying away from this issue with a 10 foot pole instead of appearing to be attacking a member of the Senate (he is the presiding official over this body) who raised some legitimate concerns. But somehow in all this Leahy is to blame.

This was not a personal attack on the character of Cheney, it was a call for an investigation of allegations of improper conduct. Instead of letting the process and political system work and keep an air of professionalism, Cheney verbally attacked Leahy for trying to shake the President of the Senates hand on the day of the Senate photo. Leahy was acting as a Senator should in this situation. Cheney would have been childish for refusing to shake his hand. Trying to bully Leahy was inappropriate. Leahy is not the issue here.

Democrats want Cheney-Halliburton probe

Having a slow day here, I see.

I) It is "appropriate" to be rude to people who provoke you. Yes, his conduct was appropriate. In the early days of the the country, men fought duels over insults. Lets reinstate the practice.

2) Had the Senate been in session? By all means, lets dream up make-believe scenarios which are more pleasing to us. How about, "Had the Senate been in session, and had their been a Democratic majority?'

3) Should Cheney be reprimanded? No. Why do you ask?

Yes nighttimer, a website for public consumption and an interview for public consumption. I made it very clear that if the word was used in a private conversation or spoken when the people thought the mics were off, that was different.

Cheney's words on the Senate floor were not to the public or for public consumption.

I've tried to make it clear here that I found Cheney's choice of words inappropriate and to clarify further, the fact that he has expressed no remorse is disgraceful.

I don't care for Cheney and wish he would step down, not necessarily for this reason, but it sure doesn't add to his credibility in my view.

Well, then I guess we will have to be grateful that C-SPAN apparently wasn't covering the Senate floor at that time.

We agree Belladonna that the Vice-President's choice of words and refusal to apologize for those words is disgraceful.

The question now is will his boss---George W. Bush, the man who promised to bring a new tone to Washington---chasten his second-in-command for his intemperate and impolite language?

I'm trying not to be cynical here, but I'm certain I'm asking a question that has already been answered.

I agree, we could rid the nation of so many of our most vile politicians this way. No more having to wait for them to die off or have a scandal force them out. People like Cheney and Bush would be so busy with duels they probably wouldn't get much else accomplished, not that they do now anyway.

Even though Cheney was simply caught at a bad moment, he's going to pay for it. Realistically, all politicians use this language privately.

What he should be more concerned about is the direct contradiction the media has pinned him on:

Its been airing on hardball for a couple days now (and on various comedy shows). A definite blow to his credibility.

Or as Jon Stewart put it; Mr. Vice President I have to inform you, your pants are on fire.

The latter. Like two little boys in a sandbox flinging insults. Or Beavis and Butthead.

Jeeeez, and these are the people who run our country.......

I believe this statement by nighttimer definitely answers question #3. If the president was sincere about setting a new tone and changing the way things work in Washington, his #2 man is evidently not on board with the concept. In this case, a private reminder of Cheney's responsibilities or dumping him from the ticket is in order.

I'm in agreement with Droop224. People who don't curse kind of irritate me, because it's not honest - you know they use the words in their head all the time. I'm all for expressing yourself honestly, and if cursing is the best way to do it, then go right ahead. I believe there are some situations where profanity is the best way to express how you feel. If someone said "By golly gee, I'm having a bad day" is that really as accurate as "I'm having a really bad f------ bad day"?
I wouldn't respect Cheney on any grounds, mainly because his positions he holds even with a homosexual daughter, but if I had, I wouldn't have lost any respect for him. I don't frown on profanity, nor do I find it distasteful. It's simply an expression of feelings. Of course, by society's precedent, such language is "distasteful" in the workplace, so many people will think he should be reprimanded. I don't. Even though he's honest about nothing else, I do admire him honestly expressing his feelings.

[QUOTE=SuzySteamboat,Jun 26 2004, 11:04 AM]I'm in agreement with Droop224. People who don't curse kind of irritate me, because it's not honest - you know they use the words in their head all the time. I'm all for expressing yourself honestly, and if cursing is the best way to do it, then go right ahead. I believe there are some situations where profanity is the best way to express how you feel. If someone said "By golly gee, I'm having a bad day" is that really as accurate as "I'm having a really bad f------ bad day"?

I know what you mean Suzy, we all use it to a point. I stub my toe, and I speak fluent french for about five minutes. At the same time, the guy was just acting, well.....crass. I mean, I don't expect Dick Cheney to not curse when he's alone with his wife or reading the paper in the White House, but in front of senators and colleagues? In any other workplace, that kind of behavior would constitute harassment(if towards fellow employees) and insubordination(if employee to employer) There is a time and place for things, and the senate floor with sitting senators is just not one of those places in my opinion. He should've been like Nixon and just cursed at the paintings while holding a bottle of wine in private.

Perhaps he is asking because everyone went nuts when Kerry used a few dirty words. (Goodness! Wash his mouth out and send him to bed without supper!)

If you would fault Kerry for swearing, why not Cheny? The question is a valid one Flenser.

CJ,

Kerry used the f-bomb when participating in an interview for public consumption. He knew his words were going to be published and he chose them anyway. Cheney told Leahy to go pleasure himself in a private conversation on the Senate floor.

Both are inappropriate for men of their stature, but the more I think about it the more I believe one is less wrong than the other.

Do you see a difference?

No, I don't see a difference Belladonna nor do I see how you do.

A f-bomb is a f-bomb is a f-bomb. Perhaps Cheney dropped the f-bomb in a private conversation rather than a public discussion, but what's your point? It took place in the U.S. Senate, not a cocktail party. Is it the venue that matters or the act itself?

This is a classic example of a difference without a distinction. It doesn't matter if Dick's words were meant for public consumption or not. He's the Vice-President of the United States and if he doesn't know by now that everything he says within earshot of a reporter or microphone will become public consumption then he's dumber than a bag of hammers. My God, Cheney has been in the hothouse atmosphere that is Washington for years and if he doesn't know by now that his every word will go into the public arena then he's unqualified for his job.

If I were to direct the f-bomb to a member of this board in public, I'd be banned PDQ. So maybe I should play it smart and direct the f-bomb to the knucklehead that's honked me off through a PM or e-mail? Yeah, like that would work!

Apparently the difference that matters most is if a conservative Republican drops the f-bomb on a liberal Democrat there must be a rational explanation and justifiable excuse for it.

linkKerry's use of the profanity in an interview with the Rolling Stone.


Link

Cheney's alleged use of the F-word on the Senate floor (out of session)



I think there are important contextual differences here. I should start with the point that I am not anti-profanity. I do not require my public officials to strike all such language from their vocabulary. When the words are for public consumption I would want my public officials to be more guarded in their use. But some profanity is fine by me.

To me a key difference is that in Kerry's case he was describing Bush's policy, but in Cheney's case he was verbally abusing a Senator about his actions as a Senator while acting in the role of the President of the Senate. I am sure Leahy can handle the language, but it was not an appropriate use of power by the Vice President. It was not an appropriate way to treat a Senator of the United States.

Also, the more important context here for me is that Cheney was speaking out about the Halliburton issue. Why is he getting near that? It seems even more proof to me that Leahy is right in calling for an investigation.

So they both swore. I can live with that. Kerry in describing a policy, and Cheney in an act of trying to bully a Senator while acting in the role of the president of the Senate (albeit on "family" photo day)

I do see the difference, but nighttimer beat me to it.



Eeyore also has a good point:


So, if I were going to place a value on profanity, I would say that what Cheny did was worse. It would basically be the same as me telling a co-worker to go pleasure themselves while I was at work. Kerry's instance is more equivalent to a verbal slip or telling a dirty joke in a public venue.

I'll say again that I don't really fault either politician for using profanity, they are just words and nothing more. However, I still find it interesting different politicians are held to different standards.

That IS the point. I am hard pressed to understand why some can't (or refuse to) understand the difference. Again, both men were wrong to do what they did, but I definately see a difference in using obscenities in a private conversation and in a public interview.



That is not true nighttimer. You might be placed on moderated for a period of time but you would not be banned - unless of course you continued to knowingly break that rule.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eeyore



Neither am I, and you are privy to that fact, however what I say in private is different that what I say in public.



Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."

He was describing what he perceived as George's actions. This was a personal attack on the President, pure and simple and he used some pretty bad language to do it. I could see your point if Kerry said - "The policy in Iraq is (fill in the blank)".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Listen, I am not defending Cheney's actions. Like I have said all along, what he did was wrong. As our VP, he should be above that. That is no way to represent the American people on the Senate floor. But, I do see a difference between public speech and private conversation- a very distinct one.

I take it from some of your responses that you see me holding these men to a different standard based on their politics. I believe I have held both men to the same standard.

If Kerry had made his comment in a private setting - like he did when he thought the microphone was off and called Bush and his supporters the biggest bunch of lying hyprocrites he'd ever seen, I wouldn't say a word.

THAT is the difference here my friends. The setting and the intent - not their political leanings.

QUOTE

Listen, I am not defending Cheney's actions. Like I have said all along, what he did was wrong. As our VP, he should be above that. That is no way to represent the American people on the Senate floor. But, I do see a difference between public speech and private conversation- a very distinct one.

I think that your logic is severely FLAWED.

Has anyone in the history of America walked on to the Senate floor, and expected to hear an F-bomb? I have to say NO. Doing so would be inappropriate.

Has anyone picked up a Rolling Stones Magazine and NOT found an F-bomb used? I have subscibed to RS for 6 years, and I can't remember a specific edition that did not contain the F word.

John Kerry was aware of his surrounding, he was aware of RS consumers, and his comment was appropriate for that setting. Many others have done it before in RS, many others will do it again and Kerry was right on the money. Nobody had any idea that Georgie boy would (fill it in) so badly. Any other word would NOT have done the comment justice.

Added: searching RollingStone.com and the F word returns 597 hits. Adding Kerry to the search brings back 3 hits. (Sorry for the tardy research)

Now back to the "I don't give a rats behind" Cheney.

Dick Cheney might as well have cursed in a church. To the Bishop.

Pick up a Rolling Stone mag. You might be surprised what kids are up to these days. It is nice to see Kerry able to relate to such a broad base.

I can see your point about Kerry Beladonna, obviously using profanity in a speech isn't called for.

However, doesn't CSPAN cover congressional sessions pretty extensively at all times? I have even tuned in a few times and it was clear everyone was on break or a session was about to begin.

The point here is, I don't think that you can necessarily consider Cheny's words to be private conversation here. Someone in his position has to know that CSPAN cameras are generally rolling and therefore anything said in the room will likely reach the public.

Now had he said this to Leahy while they were in the hall or while he was walking back to his office, ok I'll agree it was private conversation, even if a reporter overheard it. The senate floor however, is pretty much public domain because there is always a camera rolling.

So my position here has nothing to do with my politics, because honestly I don't think less of either man for saying what they said. This semantics game on the other hand is a different matter.

Maybe it is the semantics of the term personal attack here. Cheney did the equivalent of flipping Leahy the bird. This is inciteful behavior or fighting words. Not to mention the context of the comment and the role Cheney was filling at the time.

Kerry used off-color language to describe Bush's policies in regards to Iraq. This is a point that could have been debated still with examples and a counter argument about how Bush did not blank it all up.

To me that is different than a personal attack. GWB is all messed up is more of one. GWB you are messed up is even more of one.

Go blank yourself is verbal abuse. Most grown ups can get over it, but it is a direct abusive statement meant to insult the recipient.

My friend, I’m simply surprised with your response here. I’ll use Amlords reply from the Kerry/Guttermouth thread:



Nice excuse, Leahy ‘deserved’ to be called this. By whose measure? Because you don’t agree with his politics it’s ok to drop all civil decorum and act like sixth graders who’ve learned a new word? What an example for the rest of the civil word to follow, let’s ensure the new Iraqi government adds this to their vernacular as they debate the direction of their nation.

And his snickering buddies thought he deserved it as well so he must have.

As I posted in the Kerry/guttermouth thread, I don’t mind an elected official who swears, in fact it makes them a bit like ourselves (those of us who swear). I’m sure like most on this board I have the discretion to know when it’s appropriate and certainly expect the same from our highest office.

But there’s a time and place for everything and using profanity while attacking a fellow colleague on the floor of the Senate clearly steps over the line of professionalism and respect. And once you’ve lost respect you’ve lost every hope of working through issues, especially if you advertise yourself as a ‘uniter’.

It's an embarrassment to all those excellent orators and outstanding politicians who've worked those hallowed halls before him. In my mind it shows he has lack of respect for the job he's be given.

Am I a puritan? Watch me yank a wedge after a 290 yard drive, I’d make a sailor blush. But should I use the same language at work when discussing issues with a coworker? Sure, if I want to be viewed by my peers as an unprofessional egomaniac right before I get escorted out the door.