[Dialogue] Sunny re Kerry's Wife

[jim rippey]

>From Jim Rippey in Bellevue, NE

I was deeply affected by Sunny Walker's anguish over how to respond to a distressing political diatribe she received from her mother. My wife, Barbara, and I can relate. We are modestly solvent liberals, residents in a nice independent living retirement home. Most of the residents are more affluent than we are and, with an exception or two, seem to be ultra conservative Republicans. However, mostly they are nice people and we've made friends. My wife particularly enjoys being part of an ecumenical devotion group that meets weekday mornings. Often she is asked to lead. Mostly they do a good job of avoiding sectarian dogma, focusing on such as the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. 

But once in a while a fervent "protect President Bush from his enemies" prayer is voiced. One time an inflammatory anti-gay marriage communication was circulated. So far Barb's been careful, factual and discreet in her reactions. However she realizes there may come a time when she has to speak more forcefully, as she has, for instance, on church/state separation.

But now Sunny's anguish has prompted me to ponder all this more deeply. I realize that by now Sunny may have handled her situation. But I suspect more of us are likely to face similar dilemmas as the pre-election vitriol increases. Years ago I wrote speeches for important people and I still can't resist exploring possibilities. So I proceed. However, to reinforce my determination to be loving and constructive, I began by rereading Proverbs 15:1-3: "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." I find real comfort in verse 3: "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."

What follows is a range of possible responses. I'd be happy if this became a group project, a work in progress with others sharing experiences and making suggestions. 

I suggest one should approach these ideas as you would selecting a greeting card. The thoughts must be comfortable for you AND, hopefully, something your loved one can appreciate. Your message can be shorter or longer. Various of these thoughts might be woven together, in YOUR words, if any of them seem appropriate. So here goes. (Maybe here goes nothing.)

------------------------------Possibility 1-----------

Dear Mother, 

I really do love you, you know that. But we have a problem.

Maybe you don't (realize)/(accept) that I won't vote to reelect George W. Bush. Obviously you feel differently and I am not going to try to change your mind. (Certainly not when it seems your mind is made up.). I will still love you, no matter what.

However, I was deeply distressed by the statements and the tone of what you emailed me, the one criticizing Teresa Heinz Kerry. I know something about the good work Teresa Heinz Kerry does with her money. As far as I am concerned, the piece you forwarded is (dishonestly)/(unfairly) distorted and viciously nasty. It doesn't even indicate who wrote it or their qualifications. (I am particularly offended that the article calls her: "the fairy godmother of the radical left.")


Please hear me: Just because I will vote for John Kerry (for my own good reasons) doesn't mean I'm not disgusted by some of the nasty, distorted criticism I see about George Bush. I would never send any of that to you. So I ask you: please don't send me any more material like this. 

Even though we disagree on this political matter, I still love and respect you. I want to honor all the good we've shared. Can't we just avoid this subject?

- - - - - - - - -


(End with some cheerful news about whatever: the garden, the kids, the neighbors, your work- anything she might appreciate.)

---------------Possibility 2, If you think your mother tries to be open minded--------------

Dear Mother,

I was both puzzled and distressed by the recent email you sent me, the one that claims Teresa Heinz Kerry is a dangerous radical who uses her money to support subversive causes. I was distressed by the viciously nasty tone of it, labeling her "the fairy godmother of the radical left" who will whisper evil ideas into her husband's ear in bed. The one that makes the preposterous claim that John and Teresa Kerry " despise successful entrepreneurship and believe in the confiscatory redistribution of wealth."

Mother, I was so distressed by that article, I did some research (with some help from friends.) As you may know, most of us who use the internet a lot depend on Snopes.com to tell us which virus warnings are real, which are hoaxes. They also investigate various stories or statements that seem questionable. Here's what they say about the article you forwarded: "Claim: Teresa Heinz Kerry donates millions of dollars to fringe political groups through the Tides Foundation. Status: False." Snopes goes on to quote the entire article and then quote the Heinz Endowment statement in which President Maxwell King explains in detail how false the claims are. If you want to check this out, you'll find it at this address on the net: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp 


Here's a confirming statement from another site: "About Urban Legends and Folklore." It quotes the same article you sent and makes this analysis:

"The first half of the above article on Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic contender John Kerry and heiress to the Heinz family fortune, accurately recounts some of the salient facts of her biography. 

"The second half, alleging that Mrs. Kerry has used her vast wealth to support extremist causes - including groups that foster terrorism - through donations to an organization called the Tides Foundation, is false. 

"While it is a fact that the Heinz Endowments, of which Teresa Heinz Kerry is the chairman, has granted upwards of $8 million through the Tides Center and Tides Foundation since 1994 to fund high school career programs, environmental protection projects and the like in Pennsylvania (see complete list of grants), those funds were not shared by any other causes or organizations connected with Tides, according to administrators. 

You can check this site at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_teresa_heinz_kerry.htm

Mother, there are lots of internet sites claiming how awful Kerry is, and many other saying awful things about George W. Bush. There are unscrupulous people on both sides, people who don't make much effort to be honest or fair, or even decent. One nasty site I found, highly critical of Mrs. Kerry, begins this way: "Teresa Heinz, John 'Effing Kerry's wife...." I suspect you know what that means.

There are plenty of laudatory, fair, balanced articles about Teresa Heinz Kelly on the net also. 

I'm attaching one from a Pittsburgh newspaper.

------------

Editorial: Dishing the dirt / Some are stooping low to target Teresa Heinz Kerry

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 14, 2004

One of the dirty political tricks of the age is the surrogate attack on opponents from the fringes, allowing a candidate to reap the benefit while denying the responsibility. 

Both Democratic and Republican organizations play this cheap-shot game, but the Republicans seem to be more effective at it, especially when the subject is first ladies, prospective or established

Case in point: Hillary Clinton, who was excoriated by the right wing in ways that Barbara Bush and Laura Bush never had to face. One could fairly argue that the Republican first ladies are noncontroversial, traditional women who would be hard to link to any scandal, whereas Mrs. Clinton has always been political in her own right and fair game for criticism. 

But to our knowledge nobody ever seriously tried to besmirch the good names of the Republican first ladies, while Mrs. Clinton was gleefully singled out for attacks that were so rabid as to be toxic. 

Now the right-wing sleaze merchants are gearing up to go after Teresa Heinz Kerry. This budding campaign is laughable to anyone in the Pittsburgh area who is familiar with the stellar reputation of the Heinz legacy, but peddlers of dirt cater to gullible partisans with no sense of decency or shame. 

As Post-Gazette writer Dennis Roddy detailed in a story last Sunday, one of the dirt-slinging outfits is the Washington-based Capital Research Center. Mrs. Kerry is in the business of charitable giving as head of the Howard Heinz Endowment and a board member of the Vira Heinz Foundation. In any other context, this would be viewed as a highly worthy enterprise, but a report commissioned by the center managed to cast her work as sinister. 

The report said that Heinz Foundation money was going to support a San Francisco charity, The Tides Foundation and its affiliate the Tides Center, which in turn supported liberal groups that the center thinks are radical. The report's authors can't say for sure how Heinz money -- $4 million over a seven-year period -- was spent, but smears don't have to be precise. A spokesman for the Heinz Foundation said the money went specifically to environmental charities based in Western Pennsylvania, none of them radical. 

What we have here is a thin reed, but not so thin that it couldn't be woven into a bucket to carry slop. It artfully touches upon two right-wing obsessions -- conspiracies everywhere and liberals under every bed.

If Sen. John Heinz were still alive and Teresa Heinz were still his wife, you wouldn't hear a peep about this. If as a widow she had simply stayed home, played bridge and counted her money, the silence would also be deafening. This attack bristles with hostility to the idea that women can have their own lives. 

In the end, the campaign to hurt Teresa Heinz Kerry will say more about the people who perpetrate it than the woman who has the respect and admiration of the Western Pennsylvania residents who know her best. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- - - - - - - - - Other possibilities) - - - -

We all know families where various members won't have anything to do with each other, won't even speak. Some children refuse to visit there aging parents. I certainly don't intend to let that happen to us. Let's affirm our love even though there or topics on which we disagree strongly.

The fact we disagree on this isn't unique. Right now, the people of this country are almost evenly decided: half wanting to vote Bush out, half wanting to keep him. Various important people- retired ambassadors, retired generals, some top businessmen- have spoken out publicly against Bush. Some are former members of the Reagan or the first President Bush's administrations. Many other important people are working to reelect him. It is possible for honorable people to disagree. (Remember that honorable, Bible-quoting church people, north and south, disagreed so violently over the morality of slavery that we had a bloody, bloody civil war over it. Please, let's not have a family war over this election.)

--------------The end--------------

I hope some of this is useful to someone. At least I've learned a lot. Jim Rippey