On the subject of Mary Cheney, the labor saving device of “pointing to other bloggers” saves me from the obligation to trying to top this response from Lawyers, Guns and Money:
Reynolds breathlessly claims that “Lynne Cheney is letting Kerry have it for dissing her daughter.” How, might you ask, did Kerry “dis” Mary Cheney? Let’s look at the relevant part of the transcript:
KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
What a monster! How could he….er, actually, this doesn’t “dis” Mary Cheney in the slightest–it’s positive in tone and substance–unless you think there’s something wrong with being gay. So are Reynolds and Kaus just rank bigots? Perhaps, but their argument on its face is almost as stupid as bigotry itself. According to Mickey, with the assent of Reynolds, the fact that Bush’s base consists of a large number of rank homophobes means that mentioning the publicly acknowledged reality of someone’s sexuality should be out of bounds–indeed, “creepy”. The intolerance of the Republican base, therefore, is a reason to vote against Democrats. Wow, fake libertarianism doesn’t get any more fake than that!
Democrats certainly do not have a flawless record on gay rights. I’m thinking of the “hairdresser” commercial from the 2002 Montana race, or attacks on Andrew Sullivan about his personal life, or Clinton’s decision to sign the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (which Kerry voted against.) Every time I hear Kerry and Edwards stress that marriage is “between a man and a woman,” it takes a little bit of wind out of my sails.
Some of this is just realistic politics, but I can still look back and see an array of Democratic moments that should make gay-positive voters wince. I just don’t see how this is one of those moments.
Andrew Sullivan has a lot to say about this. Key quote:
The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to “victimization” is if you believe someone’s sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn’t. What’s revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many – even in the mildest “we’ll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don’t-complain” form.
{ 88 comments }
Uncle Kvetch 10.14.04 at 11:36 pm
Maybe in a perfect world Kerry’s comment would have been a trifle beyond the pale. Here in the real world, however, it was not only a strategically wise move, but a commendable one. Bush’s entire strategy on this issue is to give the wingers the homophobic red meat they crave without ever acknowledging that there are actual gay people. It’s about “defending marriage,” not about consigning a whole chunk of the population to second-class citizenship. Kerry (and Edwards, in his debate with Cheney) effectively called their bluff: this is not an abstraction, it is not solely about the status of an institution, it is about actual living, breathing people–and beyond that, actual voting citizens.
The outrage from the right on this is nothing short of delicious. I caught a minute of Joe Scarborough after the debate and he practically had the vapors. Hilarious.
I generally agree with Sullivan on pretty much nothing, but his writing today on this subject was spot-on.
And finally, not to get off topic or anything, but…why does anyone give a rat’s ass about anything Mickey Kaus says, ever? Hasn’t he made it abundantly clear that he’s carved out a comfortable little niche for himself as “The Democrat who hates Democrats,” and he’s sticking with it, logic and common sense be damned?
MIller 10.14.04 at 11:52 pm
You have to read it like they do:
son volt 10.15.04 at 12:11 am
Dick Cheney brought up Mary first, on the eve of the Republican convention. His statement, to the effect that he has a gay daughter and doesn’t support a constitutional amendment to outlaw all forms of gay marriage, was clearly part of an orchestrated campaign to portray Bush as friendly to moderates. BC04 wants to play both sides of the gay rights issue; K/E would be crazy if they let them get away with it.
Jon H 10.15.04 at 12:12 am
The right’s response reminds me of the little kid who got in trouble at school for writing that his mother was gay, even though she *was* gay, and open about it.
The right is acting like that kid’s school, which could not conceive of a usage of ‘gay’ that is not derogatory.
Giles 10.15.04 at 12:26 am
“she would tell you that she’s being who she was”
Does this make sense? Why can’t she be who she is.
No, why people are jumping on this is that its the usual Kerry presumptiousness.
How does Kerry know she was born a lesbian? Has he interviewed her or done scientific research? Does it make it any more or less acceptable if she was born a lesbian or choose to become one?
This is the typical of the “look they’re borne that way” man and his “african american” wife
bob mcmanus 10.15.04 at 12:40 am
“Does it make it any more or less acceptable if she was born a lesbian or choose to become one?”
Paging Judith Butler? I was a little troubled by Kerry’s quick response, not knowing if the current politic answer is “I don’t know, and don’t care.”
But I also don’t know why the Right chose this to attack Kerry (an interesting question of tactics) or if Lynne just got pissed off. I think they were trying to counter that great big smile, to lower Kerry’s likability numbers, which I suspect got a big boost last night.
eudoxis 10.15.04 at 1:10 am
…actually, this doesn’t “dis†Mary Cheney in the slightest—it’s positive in tone and substance—unless you think there’s something wrong with being gay.
Both Kerry’s statement and the LGM response are a bit off the mark. Kerry uses the reality of Mary Cheney’s lesbianism as an example to support his theory of the reality of a constitutional basis for homosexuality. But this is far from a settled issue and Bush’s “I don’t know” is far more reflective of the current state of knowledge about homosexuality. I think it was that twist on the use of Mary as an example that made it seem out of line.
And, just by example, one need not think something is wrong with being gay to find this use of Mary inappropriate.
paperwight 10.15.04 at 1:22 am
And, just by example, one need not think something is wrong with being gay to find this use of Mary inappropriate.
If she were a purely private citizen, and her father weren’t paying her to do gay outreach and talking about her sexual preference in his campaign appearances, maybe.
But she’s a public figure, daughter and gay outreach manager of the vice presidential candidate of a party which has consistently legislated against her.
Ken C. 10.15.04 at 1:39 am
“No, why people are jumping on this is that its the usual Kerry presumptiousness.”
I doubt that the right wing attacks on the mention of Mary Cheney are due to objections to presumptiousness, or a suggestion of an inaccurate or unproven theory of human sexuality, or the possible improper implication that differences in sexuality must be innate to be acceptable.
One right-wing objection I’ve seen is that this was a devious Kerry plan to separate Bush from some of his bigoted supporters, and to pander to those same bigoted supporters by pointing out a lesbian Republican. (No, really, this was suggested at tacitus.org.) I think that sneaky Kerry has also mentioned before that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell work for Bush, thereby cutting into the big racist block in Bush’s base. So the Mary mention was part of the master plan.
daudder 10.15.04 at 1:51 am
Yes, Kaus and Reynolds are bigots.
daudder 10.15.04 at 1:51 am
Yes, Kaus and Reynolds are bigots.
Randy Paul 10.15.04 at 2:51 am
I have to say it yet again: Reynolds and Kaus put the ass in bombastic.
Ethesis 10.15.04 at 3:33 am
I missed that part of the debate, but my teen-aged daughter and her friends thought it was a low blow.
paperwight 10.15.04 at 3:49 am
So did my socially conservative small-town friends, but the question is why?
Do they think that Kerry outed her?
Do they understand that she’s already active and out in public doing gay outreach for BC04?
Do they understand that her father is the person who brought her sexual preference into the campaign?
I haven’t heard a good reason yet that actually makes any sense given those facts.
eudoxis 10.15.04 at 4:00 am
So did my socially conservative small-town friends, but the question is why?
For the same reasons Democrats thought it was wise of Kerry to use Mary in the debate. It’s an ownership issue. The Republicans want their own gays who will tow the line on the republican platform.
paperwight 10.15.04 at 4:17 am
Er, yeah, but my friends are all conservative Democrats who will be voting Kerry. They just had this gut reaction — probably because they didn’t know all the facts — but it was there.
waldtest 10.15.04 at 5:01 am
I don’t view the Cheneys’ umbrage at John Kerry’s reference to their daughter, who has been public about her lesbianism and worked in corporate outreach to the gay and lesbian community, as anything other than false and politically inspired to distract attention from the issues and the President’s misstatements.
While the right and the media play this up, the President’s deliberate effort to smear Kerry as a liar, or as the President put it, an EXAGGERATER, by lying about his own statements about Osama Bin Laden, goes uncommented on.
George 10.15.04 at 5:47 am
Glenn Reynolds is generally pretty fair, but he’s off base on this one. (Kaus a bit less so.) There’s a grain of truth to what they are saying: that Kerry’s point could have been made with any number of well-known homosexuals, rather than the Vice President’s daughter, and that thus citing her specifically is an unnecessary intrusion into family business. But the facts weigh against them — in particular, the fact that Cheney has spoken openly of Mary and her orientation before, and especially the fact that Mary herself is a public political figure. Isn’t she Dick’s campaign manager?
Even if Kerry was just a bit over the line, the response of the Republicans has been much uglier. For Lynne Cheney to call Kerry’s comment a “tawdry political trick” makes absolutely no sense, unless she’s trying to repair the GOP’s image with orientation bigots.
Kaus may be right that Kerry and Edwards are pursuing a conscious political strategy to highlight the inherent contradiction in the GOP position; that seems quite plausible, although not certain. But I wouldn’t call that creepy, I’d call it smart politics.
PS: I’m voting for Bush and I hope he wins, but I think that today’s GOP (if not Dubya himself) are crass, ugly and antidemocratic. Hey, I’m the Republican Mickey Kaus!
paperwight 10.15.04 at 5:51 am
I’m voting for Bush and I hope he wins, but I think that today’s GOP (if not Dubya himself) are crass, ugly and antidemocratic.
If you’re serious, why?
Thomas 10.15.04 at 6:04 am
Let me get this straight: suggesting that a candidate is a gay hairdresser is gay baiting; saying a candidate’s daughter as a lesbian is not gay baiting. Ted describes the first as shameful, and the second as no big deal.
Because being a gay hairdresser is shameful, and being a lesbian isn’t?
I much preferred the Andrew Sullivan of 2002, who thought that appeals to homophobia deserved to be called that. For those who are curious, check Andrew’s archives for a discussion of the Mike Taylor/Max Baucus controversy. Andrew took a very hard line then, and exactly the opposite of his line now. Then, he said those taking his new line were “blaming the victim.” How things change.
But, then, John Kerry’s election is much more important than any principle involved.
Integrity, integrity, integrity.
Greg 10.15.04 at 7:19 am
Sorry, but it was cheap politicing. I know why he did it: Bush and Cheney have attempted to redefine the Constitution to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage, essentially denying the reality of Mary Cheney’s sexuality even while they exploit it. That’s pretty cheap itself, but doesn’t excuse Kerry. It’s always a low blow to critisize an opponent by dragging in their family. Nevertheless, Dick & Lynne’s outrage is overblown, and smacks of stagecraft in order to ensure their publically lesbian daughter’s sexuality doesn’t get them in dutch with the homophobes among their support base. Kerry said “made” instead of waffling the answer to leave it potentially a matter of choice. His position’s clear and he marked it out on Mary Cheney.
h. e. baber 10.15.04 at 7:38 am
You can’t have it both ways. If you exploit your sexual orientation in support of one candidate, you can’t complain if another candidate cites it in support of his campaign.
mona 10.15.04 at 7:59 am
I can’t stand Bush, I can’t stand homophobic bigots, I find that kind of reaction disproportionate, but I can’t deny I found Kerry’s response a bit lacking in style. Ok, so she’s outed herself, she’s been mentioned by her father in the first place, all fair and good, but Kerry knew what he was doing when he said that “who is :pause: a lesbian” – he was trying to bring out exactly the kind of bigoted, hypocrite outrage from the homophobes in the Bush base. Realistically, it’s just politics, tactics, it was smart. But not too pleasant. “If you talked to her she’d tell you that”, uh, maybe she would like to speak for herself instead? No big deal, but I just think he could have made his point without mentioning anyone in particular, it would have been more appreciated. A lot of gay people don’t have the privileges that come with having Cheney as a father.
yabonn 10.15.04 at 9:27 am
C’mon, you can’t ask the rightwingers to stop their projection-vociferation-outrage routine like that, it’s one of their trademarks.
All the same you could ask fox news to cut it about all these biased librul media, or ask a random rightwing pundit to shut up with his “simple man against the leftist rich elitists” line.
That’s just what they do.
jet 10.15.04 at 1:17 pm
Mona, you are so 100% right.
The problem is with Kerry’s intent. He *used* Cheney’s daughter as a *tool* against Bush in the perceived notion that it would effect Bush’s bigoted voters (and the Klan vote an’t going to Bush).
At least the right didn’t elect someone who’s attacting their key moral values. But it looks like the left is trying to elect someone who thinks using someone’s sexuality against their father is fine. Kerry is either a slime ball willing to do anything to win or a slime ball willing to use homo-phobia to win. And he’s an idiot, cause not even the crazy extremist gayness is a choice people are going to not vote because of this. It isn’t like she just came out of the closet or that Cheney is new to politics.
rea 10.15.04 at 1:36 pm
“He used Cheney’s daughter as a tool against Bush in the perceived notion that it would effect Bush’s bigoted voters”
You’ve got that exactly wrong.
I’ve yet to find a gay or lesbian who is offended by what Kerry said. If you’re out, that means your sexual orientation is not a secret.
The point of the Republican reaction is to appeal to their homophobic base. What’s supposedly shocking about this is that Kerry embarrased the parents by talking about ther daughter’s sexual perversions on national TV.
rea 10.15.04 at 2:25 pm
“Democrats certainly do not have a flawless record on gay rights. I’m thinking of the ‘hairdresser’ commercial from the 2002 Montana race, or attacks on Andrew Sullivan about his personal life”
Both these accusations of homophobic behavior on the part of the Democrats are nonsense.
In the Montana incident, the Democrat ran an ad that proved that the Republican candidate had been a crooked cosmetologist who dressed funny in the ’70s. How that suggested that the Republican was gay is a mystery to me–he wasn’t gay, he really was a crooked cosmetologist who dressed funny, and being a crooked cosmetologist who dresses funny is not a sign of gayness.
With Sullivan’s sex life, most of the people raising this were gays who were offended by his behavior, particularly by the fact that he was practicing unsafe sex, although also by the fact that he was being promiscuous while moralizing about the need for gays to practice monogamy.
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 2:47 pm
The problem is with Kerry’s intent.
To borrow Giles’ term, that’s awfully presumptious of you, Jet. How the hell do you know what Kerry intended to do?
But it looks like the left is trying to elect someone who thinks using someone’s sexuality against their father is fine.
It’s only “using” Mary’s sexuality “against her father” if you think her sexuality is a mark of shame.
Now of course, there are many people in the Bush-Cheney camp who do think that. And Kerry drove a nifty little wedge in there by pointing out the rank hypocrisy in an administration trying desperately to have it both ways.
As a gay man, I can only say, “Bravo.”
No big deal, but I just think he could have made his point without mentioning anyone in particular
Mona, I respectfully disagree. As Sullivan pointed out yesterday, the whole essence of the Bush-Cheney approach on this issue is to obscure the very existence of gay people as much as possible, so that they can advocate blatantly discriminatory policies while not looking too “mean.” There’s a reason Bush punted on the “choice” question (“I don’t know”) and then immediately reframed the issue as one of “protecting marriage.” They needed to be called out on this dishonest rhetorical strategy in the most direct way possible. I can’t think of a better way to do that than pointing out that these “compassionate conservatives” would enshrine second-class citizenship for all time, in the very Constitution of the United States, for the Vice President’s own daughter–even as they brandish her as evidence of their inclusiveness.
I have to say that a lot of the discussion of the “choice” issue here has been awfully muddled, with more than one person suggesting that the verdict on choice is still out. I really don’t believe that’s true. The verdict on the “nature vs. nurture” etiology of sexual orientation is very much out, but that’s an entirely different question.
The suggestion that sexual orientation/attraction is “chosen” strikes me as ludicrous on its face. (I could be wrong, of course–if any heterosexuals out there care to tell me about the moment at which they consciously “chose” to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, I’m all ears.) The fact that it was asked at all at the debate reflects the ways in which the Religious Right is successfully defining the terms of the debate. If one argues that LGBT folk choose to “be that way,” two political implications follow: (1) we can’t claim equality under the law on the same terms as race/ethnicity/gender; and (2) we can “choose” to not be gay. I don’t know if the non-US readers and commenters on this thread are aware of the flourishing “ex-gay” ministries across the Bible Belt, or of the number of people on the right who really believe gays can be “cured.”
This is what queer folk are up against in the United States in 2004. And I’m supposed to feel bad for the poor Cheney family? If you can’t stand the heat, folks…
Brian 10.15.04 at 3:11 pm
I was a bit jolted by Kerry’s remark, but after re-reading it in the transcript and understanding the context, it’s clear that it isn’t gratuitous or mean. CBS Bob asked whether the candidates believed homosexuality is a choice, and Kerry said he believes it isn’t and make a clear attempt to de-link politics and sexual orientation by pointing out Dick Cheney’s openly gay daughter (a Republican) would agree with him. Bush and Co. want to make homosexuality a political issue this year and I think Kerry wanted to make it clear that it isn’t.
I think the reason for the conservative backlash here is that the Republicans want to view homosexuality as representing sex only. And having sex is a choice. So from a conservative perspective, Kerry might have well have said that Cheney’s daughter choses to do other women. But Kerry (and out gays) undoubtedly believe that it isn’t a choice, but that they are born this way, so its not just about sneaking a little cunnilingous from time to time, its about wanting to ‘bond’ with someone of the same sex. I find the conservative response sad and a bit silly.
Jacob T. Levy 10.15.04 at 3:21 pm
Just borrowing my comment from Belle’s post on the same subject at John & Belle:
I understand the urge to say that this is just self-enforcing poetic justice. “I have no problem with the fact that you’re daughter’s gay. If you or the voters you’re trying to attract have a problem with the fact that your daughter’s gay, then that’s your problem, since, after all, your daughter’s gay.”
But it’s a slimy pandering to prejudices nonetheless, and it was perfectly transparent that that’s what Kerry was doing. (Marginally less transparent with Edwards, because he was smoother and because he was actually talking to Cheney at the time so it didn’t seem so out of the blue.) In this case it’s a slimy pandering to prejudices the speaker doesn’t share. Good for him for not sharing them. Bad for him for seeking to get electoral mileage out of them.
It’s directly comparable to the “John McCain has a black baby” campaign in South Carolina. Part of the problem with that campaign was that John McCain’s adopted child was Bengali (“black” in British terms but not American terms). But most of the problem was that, *there’s nothing wrong with having a black baby, and there is something wrong in pandering to other people’s prejudices in an attempt to get electoral advantage.* Repeatedly bringing up one’s opponent’s black baby in an attempt to benefit from other people’s racism is a bad thing to do even if one is not racist oneself. Indeed, along one dimension it’s worse. One knows better.
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 3:42 pm
It’s directly comparable to the “John McCain has a black baby†campaign in South Carolina.
It is nothing of the sort.
It would be “directly comparable” if Democratic political operatives were surreptitiously phoning conservative voters and saying “Did you know Dick Cheney has a daughter who’s a lesbian?”–all the while denying doing so, of course.
Or, alternatively, it would be “directly comparable” if John McCain’s adopted Bengali child was also an employee of McCain’s campaign.
The notion that Mary Cheney has been “dragged” into this is patent nonsense. I’m with Sullivan (cripes, I can’t believe I’m citing him approvingly like this!): Mary’s a grownup, let’s hear her side of this. As of this writing, her silence speaks volumes.
perianwyr 10.15.04 at 3:57 pm
she’s a professional gay. that’s her job.
honk honk clue train coming through
son volt 10.15.04 at 4:03 pm
It’s directly comparable to the “John McCain has a black baby†campaign in South Carolina
If John McCain had a running mate who supported a constitutional amendment to ban interracial adoption, and McCain pointed to his adopted black child in a transparent attempt to demonstrate that the GOP is a “big tent”, then you might have a point. But obviously none of those crucial qualifiers are the case, so your analogy really doesn’t apply.
raj 10.15.04 at 4:12 pm
One wonders what potential clients Reynolds is trolling for with this post.
yabonn 10.15.04 at 4:24 pm
Indeed, along one dimension it’s worse. One knows better.
Hey look! I found another dimension over here!
One where it’s – wow! – _not_ worse to use homophobia against homophobes themselves than actually hating homos!
Must be that poetic justice thingy at work again.
Molly 10.15.04 at 4:55 pm
Throughout this entire “Mary Cheney is gay” tempest in a teapot I keep wondering why Mary herself doesn’t pipe up to either condemn or condone Kerry’s remarks. One would assume that she’s a grown woman who doesn’t need her parents to defend her. The fact that she’s her father’s campaign manager and doesn’t talk to the press at all has caused me to raise an eyebrow on more than one occasion. The only reason I can find for this speaks to a very conflicted family dynamic. Mary is allowed to participate in the campaign but does not appear with the candidates’ families on the stage at the Republican convention. Mom and Dad Cheney bristle at Kerry’s remark but let Alan Keyes’s “selfish hedonist” statement pass. Perhaps Elizabeth Edwards is right when she identifies a certain amount of shame surrounding the Cheney daughter.
It seems clear that Kerry’s comment was a political shot but it’s one that hits the mark. At the same time it’s hard to ignore the fact that the Cheneys are using family for political ends as well.
George 10.15.04 at 5:18 pm
Paperwight (about 20 posts up): I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but I will this time because of Iraq. This election is fundamentally a referendum on the invasion of Iraq, and I think that act was one of the best things the United States has done in a generation.
(Not the place to get into the reasons. If you agree, you agree; if you don’t, you dont.)
GMT 10.15.04 at 6:47 pm
Feh.
Dick Cheney didn’t complain about this after the Veep debate. Dick Cheney is the one who brought this issue up in Iowa back in August.
Whining about Kerry’s ‘attack’ (which it only looks like if you think homosexuality is shameful) is the only place the Republicans can hide their candidate’s pathetic performance and blunt its effect on the polls.
Remarkable how the SCLM helps this little ploy along, the facts in sentences two and three of this post seem beyond them.
GMT 10.15.04 at 6:58 pm
But, then, John Kerry’s election is much more important than any principle involved.
Or at least the ones that Thomas can grasp.
Yet again, I notice that one’s outrage over the subject is in inverse proportion to one’s knowledge of it. (So it’s no wonder that this is sweeping the right.)
Matt Weiner 10.15.04 at 7:20 pm
Let me get this straight: suggesting that a candidate is a gay hairdresser is gay baiting; saying a candidate’s daughter as a lesbian is not gay baiting.
Because the candidate was not an out gay (nor do I have any evidence that he is a closeted gay) while the daughter is an out lesbian. (I agree with rea, incidentally; the Montana commercial wasn’t gay-baiting.) Does no one care about whether what was said was true?
Thomas 10.15.04 at 7:33 pm
Matt, if I understand you, your contention is that emphasizing an opponents homosexuality is fine so long as it’s true, but isn’t ok if it isn’t true. It seems to me that dishonesty isn’t the only issue; if honesty were the issue there’d be no need to reference gay baiting.
The consensus here seems to be that almost no attack can be called gay baiting–attacks can only be called true or false. So, if a candidate suggests his opponents is gay, that’s not gay-baiting. It may be true or false, and whether it is appropriate depends on that. If a candidate says that his opponent supports a gay rights agenda, similarly, that’s not gay baiting. It’s just true or false. And so on. It seems to me that on that account, there’s nothing left to the term ‘gay baiting.’
gmt, please go read Andrew Sullivan’s site. I happen to remember the posts he wrote on the Taylor ads, and I can tell you, without any hesitation, that the position he took then is exactly the opposite of the position he’s taking now. (His site is word searchable, so check for yourself.) It may be that he was wrong in 2002 and is right now, but he’d have to acknowledge that he’s changed his mind. He insists he hasn’t, which suggests to me that princples aren’t doing the work. I’d be happy for you to show me I’m wrong, but suggesting I can’t grasp the relevant principles doesn’t do that.
DJW 10.15.04 at 8:06 pm
I just don’t get the analogy to the McCain adoption scenario. The GOP has built an electoral base that includes rank bigots that think gays shouldn’t be tolerated. It also includes moderates who aren’t bigots at all. Their efforts to appeal to both bases are precarious and difficult. Are the Democrats obligated to not interfere with that balancing effort?
To put it another way, in a just and sane world, those who think accepting and loving a gay son or daughter is demonstrably unacceptable for a national political candidate ought to be out of the mainstream of american politics, and rejected by political parties that want to call themselves mainstream. The GOP wants to have it both ways–the electoral benefits of rejecting them (carefully, to the right audiences) and embracing them (carefully, to the right audiences). If Kerry’s motivation was to send a reminder to these people, it was not an act of pandering–it was an act of pushing them to confront a contradiction in their political identities (Republican voter and hard-core homophobe). This contradiction deserves confrontation. If those people are forced to choose one or the other, we’ll all be better off.
jet 10.15.04 at 8:08 pm
Maybe the reason that so many conservatives are enraged over Kerry’s remarks is that his presumptivness to assume that this would cost Bush votes from people like me. Just like a lot of you, Kerry assumes a lot of the right will be upset at the knowledge of Cheney’s daughter and support will slack for Bush (or else why didn’t he pick a more prominent homosexual? it isn’t like she’s been out dancing in the spot light.) So the old saw is true. The right thinks the left is misguided. The left thinks the right is a bunch of stupid bigots.
Although I do find humor in that the war for equal marriage rights for gays was within 10-15 years of being won, the tactic of getting activist judges into high courts might actually get an amendment banning gay marriage. Those hippies 30 years ago didn’t see this coming did they? But they don’t call it blowback because it was obvious ;)
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 8:12 pm
It seems to me that on that account, there’s nothing left to the term ‘gay baiting.’
Perhaps I can help you out with this, Thomas.
When the convocation opening the Republican party convention is delivered by a female Mormon minister who has written that Americans who fail to oppose gay marriage are analagous to Germans who failed to speak up against Nazism: that’s gay-baiting.
When Dick Cheney finishes his speech at said convention, and his family comes up on stage to smile and wave at the cameras–with the exception of the VP’s lesbian daughter and her partner, who remain in their seats: that’s gay-baiting.
When George Bush tells married Americans that their marriage is “threatened” by the prospect that gay people might be able to get married too, and that he’s going to “protect” their marriages by ensuring that that never happens: that’s gay-baiting.
In short, I think the term has quite a bit of life left in it, sadly.
jet 10.15.04 at 8:14 pm
djw, so the 66% of american that polls against gay marriage should be cut out of “mainstream” america, and shouldn’t have their views represented? I hadn’t realized god was dead and left you in charge in his will.
Or are you saying that Cheney’s openness and accpetance about his duaghter has cost him power? It wasn’t like Bush chose Cheney and then the day after they won the election Cheney was like “Yo George, there was something I’ve been meaning to tell you.”
Damn dude, refuting you is kind of tedious and ammusing at the same time.
jet 10.15.04 at 8:19 pm
djw, I don’t want you to feel piled on, but what did you mean by this, “If Kerry’s motivation was to send a reminder to these people, it was not an act of pandering—it was an act of pushing them to confront a contradiction in their political identities (Republican voter and hard-core homophobe).”?
Kerry was not up there trying to win the debate and get as many votes for himself while costing Bush where he could? He was actually up their trying to provoke conservatives into a deep introspective debate with themselves in order to grow their acceptence of alternative lifestyles?
You need a job in politics in PR cause that is classic BS from the front desk of a politician.
jet 10.15.04 at 8:23 pm
kvetch,
I’m with you on this one except for one problem. I don’t think anyone has ever answered Bush’s argument directly. You know, the legal one about the Constitution and activist judges. I’m not saying I agree with Bush, because I see some similarities between 60’s mixed marriages and current gay marriage.
But no one ever seems interested in debating the only honest part of Bush’s arguement.
Anderson 10.15.04 at 8:29 pm
Was that the Jacob Levy late of the Volokhs who posted that stuff about how Kerry’s trying to get Cheney in hot water with the homophobic Right?
Prof. Levy is a smart man, so I had to wonder.
There’s not a single American whose homophobia is a push-button issue who DOESN’T ALREADY KNOW Mary’s gay. They have their own cocoonlike media that bring such things prominently to their attention. And as noted, Cheney “used” Mary in a speech months ago, and it was all over the national media.
What I took Kerry to be doing was simply pointing to the Republicans’ hypocrisy. Look at what the Republicans’ official platform says about gays. Look at what Republican candidates and PAC’s say about gays in their mailings. Then remind yourself that the people being demonized include the VP’s own daughter.
That’s a fair point to raise, and I wish he’d raised it harder.
Henry Woodbury 10.15.04 at 8:34 pm
I think there are several points worth drawing out here. First, IF the Mary Cheney references were designed to resonate with homophobes, there’s no reason to assume that it is Republican homophobes that are at issue.
Second, the reference to Mary Cheney IS unusual in context of a political debate. Politicans rarely refer to the families of their opponents. Of course, all of the analogies I’ve seen so far are overblown, since Kerry and Edward’s remarks were judgement neutral and, in Edwards case practically ingratiating.
But that’s odd, isn’t it? Kerry and Edwards mention Mary Cheney, and don’t follow-up with the obvious next line: “Isn’t it hypocritical…” Why not? Why didn’t Kerry and Edwards press the issue?
The sad fact is, despite being a lot more right than the Bush Administration, Kerry and Edwards only talk about gay rights when pressed and specifically disavow gay marriage. Perhaps they bring up the Vice President’s daughter because it’s an easy way to duck further discussion.
So I suspect that this little episode has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with political gamesmanship.
Another Damned Medievalist 10.15.04 at 8:34 pm
Hmmm. I thought it was awkward and probably not effective enough to have made a difference. And I do think it can be seen as a cheap shot — not because Kerry was pandering to homophobia or anything like that, but because it’s using a member of the opposition’s family as an example. Even if it’s a good example, it’s just kind of tacky. Even if Mary Cheney is out and working for BC 2004, it’s kind of tacky.
I think Lynne Cheney’s reaction is the more telling, though — I don’t think she’s all that comfortable with having a gay daughter.
Anyway, Kerry should probably apologize to MARY in an “I’m sorry if I put you in an uncomfortable position, it was not my intent, perhaps should have chosen another example” way and get the political conversation back on track.
jet 10.15.04 at 8:36 pm
Anderson, I can hypothosize why he “didn’t raise it harder”. It might have something to do with a lot of those anti-gay marriage bigots are on “your” side.
Think about this, the Republican party is a long ways from being down the line against gay marriage. A LOT of Republicans don’t have a problem with gay marriage and a whole lot more don’t have a problem with civil contracts. So if 66% of people are against gay marriage, how many of them are Democrats?
Daz right, your man has to watch his step around his own bigots, sucka!
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 9:01 pm
kvetch, I’m with you on this one except for one problem. I don’t think anyone has ever answered Bush’s argument directly. You know, the legal one about the Constitution and activist judges.
What exactly is Bush’s argument, Jet? I’ll answer it when someone can explain to me what the hell it is. As far as I’ve been able to tell, the phrase “activist judges,” when used by Bush and those of his ilk, means “judges who reach conclusions I disagree with.”
You’ve brandished the figure of 66% opposition to gay marriage…do you feel that this issue should be decided by popular vote, rather than those “activist judges”? If so, say so. And if that is in fact the case, I assume that you would have been equally opposed to “Loving v. Virginia,” the Supreme Court decision in the 60s that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, for the same reason. After all, at the time of that decision, a clear majority of Americans opposed interracial marriage, and the “activist judges” of the day simply bulldozed right over them.
And if you feel that this is an issue that’s best left to the states, why amend the Constitution to take that right away from the states?
jet 10.15.04 at 9:12 pm
kvetch,
Well there you go, why didn’t Kerry say that. Since he’s ditto on Bush for foreign policy, right of me, but still left of Bush on social policy, and the only thing repulsive is his commie economic plan, he almost had my vote. If he could have just grown a pair and done the right thing on the biggest social issue of the day I could have put up with some slower economic growth in exchange for not having to contemplate little gay kids not being able to grow up and be gay husbands and wives. I value my marriage above all other things. Not much in life means a whole hell of a lot besides those we love. So deciding that, while Jesus certainly wouldn’t approve (change hearts with love, not the sword), we’re going to use the sword of the law to enforce “our” mores and the only result will be suffering, is probably one of the dumbest things possible.
“They keep telling me I’m a libertarian, I keep telling them I’m a NeoCon. (change from within)”
rea 10.15.04 at 9:15 pm
“I assume that you would have been equally opposed to “Loving v. Virginia,†the Supreme Court decision in the 60s that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, for the same reason”
And incidently, the proposed amendment backed by Bush was drafted so broadly that it would have overturned Loving v Virginia and reinstated state laws banning interracial marriage-can’t have those activist judges messing around with the institution of marriage, can we?
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 9:32 pm
If he could have just grown a pair and done the right thing on the biggest social issue of the day I could have put up with some slower economic growth in exchange for not having to contemplate little gay kids not being able to grow up and be gay husbands and wives.
Bush pursues an openly antigay agenda, and it’s all Kerry’s fault for not opposing him vociferously enough, so obviously the only sensible choice is to vote for Bush.
Jet, you’re a lot of fun to have around.
djw 10.15.04 at 9:44 pm
Jet, you seem quite angry. Sorry if I upset you. Let me try to explain what I meant. I was not referring to opposition to gay marriage. I was referring to those who think it is unacceptable to accept a gay son or daughter for who they are. This is a subset of the larger group you mention. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. Those people are out there, albeit in relatively small numbers (more than a couple of them are members of my extended family).
Kerry was not up there trying to win the debate and get as many votes for himself while costing Bush where he could? He was actually up their trying to provoke conservatives into a deep introspective debate with themselves in order to grow their acceptence of alternative lifestyles?
No. Or rather, yes to the first question. If some hard-core homophobes (again, not synonymous with opposing gay marriage in my lexicon) are on the fence about BC because of the degree to which they support tolerating homosexuality, reminders like this might push them to stay home because the contradiction between their republican voting ways and their gay-hatin’ drives them to do so. Again, I have no doubt you and your good conservative friends are not these people, but they do exist. If they choose to reconsider the degree and content of their homophobia, great, but that doesn’t seem likely and I don’t suppose that’s the goal.
Finally, I should mention that I’m not convinced this coded message to hard-core homophobes is what Kerry was up to. I think it’s just as likely he didn’t really mean anything by it. I’m defending Kerry in this scenario because it’s the only (or most likely plausible) scenario in which this answer was a political ploy. I don’t know if it was or not, but if it was it isn’t offensive or out of bounds, no matter how hard of a PR campaign the GOP spinners launch to convince us otherwise.
Finally, if you can hook me up with a cushy PR job, I’d be quite greatful :)
djw 10.15.04 at 9:50 pm
Jet, I see from your most recent post you don’t oppose gay marriage. I apologize for making that unwarranted and incorrect inference. Still, I’m as puzzled by your logic as Uncle Kvetch–and perhaps someday you can explain how Kerry’s econ plan is “Commie.”
jet 10.15.04 at 10:04 pm
Kvetch,
I don’t think I made myself clear enough. Because Kerry hasn’t differentiated himself enough from Bush about gay marriage, his slightly more positive stance on this issue doesn’t outway his incredibely lame (in my opinion) stances on the economy.
djw,
I concede the arguement against Kerry. I like Cheney a heck of a lot more than Bush, and I respect the tenious position he and his daughter are put in by being Republicans and circumspectly pro-gay agenda, but if causing Cheney’s family some discomfort forces the right to confront some demons while losing an election, so be it.
Locutor 10.15.04 at 10:14 pm
Uncle Kvetch & djw,
I stand in awe of your patient ability to converse with an absurd little jackass like Jet, and actually listen to and debate with him.
May your patience be rewarded. Kudos to you!
Locutor
rob 10.15.04 at 10:32 pm
I think Jet has it pegged. When Edwards first raised the Mary Cheney issue in the vice presidential debate, he did it in such a respectful way that no one took exception. I wondered at the time if Mary Cheney’s gayness was something he was trying to make a national audience aware of, and thus deprive the Republicans of a few ignorant votes. (Yeah, she’s already out and public and all that, but look at this enormous audience, many of whom might only be tuning in for the first time.) Then I put the thought aside as unworthy.
But when Kerry so obviously swerved in the road to bring Mary Cheney into the picture a second time, my eyes narrowed a bit more. At best, it was a ham-handed thing to do. At worst, it revealed one of the less worthy plays in the National Debate Handbook.
Jacob T. Levy 10.15.04 at 10:35 pm
Anyway, Kerry should probably apologize to MARY in an “I’m sorry if I put you in an uncomfortable position, it was not my intent, perhaps should have chosen another example†way and get the political conversation back on track.
Yes, yes, yes. Even Kerry defending himself keeps the conversation on this topic instead of, e.g., on Bush’s bin Laden lie, and distracts from getting “I’m not that concerned about him” played over and over again on the news. Tactically it’s been a real mistake not to get this story out of the way ASAP, even at the “cost” of an apology. (Hell, an apology can be a twofer: “Unlike the President, I can see when I’ve made a mistake. Now, let’s play the tape of the President’s answer when asked to name three mistakes…”)
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 10:39 pm
Because Kerry hasn’t differentiated himself enough from Bush about gay marriage, his slightly more positive stance on this issue doesn’t outway his incredibely lame (in my opinion) stances on the economy.
Kerry’s stance on the issue isn’t “slightly more positive” than Bush’s–it’s fundamentally different. Here I go again, approvingly quoting Andrew Sullivan to my own astonishment(has there been a sudden cold snap down in Hades, by any chance?):
Both Bush and Kerry oppose civil marriage for gays. True. But Kerry supports giving gays every single right that civil marriage has – on a state and federal level – and just wants to call it something different. Kerry also believes that the individual states should decide what their own policies should be. Bush opposes civil unions, and has supported a constitutional amendment that would forbid any state from granting the “incidents” of marriage to any gay couple. Kerry: 100 percent of the rights of civil marriage. Bush: none. I’d say that’s a pretty huge difference, wouldn’t you? Some say the president supports civil unions. Funny, I’ve never heard him say that in public and his FMA would ban them. If the president believes gay couples should have some limited rights – but not marriage rights – I’d love to hear him say it. But he won’t. Why? Because he’s catering to people who think gay couples are an abomination, that’s why.
Thomas 10.15.04 at 11:06 pm
John Kerry: “The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.” Now, is it that Andrew’s right and John Kerry’s a liar, or is the other way around? Or mustn’t we ask such questions before the election, only after?
Uncle–I’d remind you that, after Missouri’s voters decided to bar recognition of gay marriage in that state, John Kerry indicated, without any reservation, that he’d have voted with them. That state constitutional amendment did not provide any of the incidents of marriage to gay couples, and there is no other law in Missouri that does. John Kerry didn’t express any support for civil unions while in Missouri. Is that because he’s catering to people who think gay couples are an abomination?
Jacob–Would Kerry insist that he made a mistake in how he talked about Dick Cheney’s daughter, while George Bush had made a mistake in how he treated her?
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.04 at 11:37 pm
Uncle—I’d remind you that, after Missouri’s voters decided to bar recognition of gay marriage in that state, John Kerry indicated, without any reservation, that he’d have voted with them. That state constitutional amendment did not provide any of the incidents of marriage to gay couples, and there is no other law in Missouri that does.
It doesn’t bar such incidents either, where as the FMA that Bush supports would. I think that’s a substantive difference.
You’re right that Kerry should have spoken in favor of civil unions when he said he would have supported the Missouri amendment. His bad. He did advocate equal rights under the law for gay couples during the debate, however, which Bush did not.
I’m less than thrilled with Kerry on this issue, but if you’re trying to convince me, a la Nader, that there’s “not a dime’s bit of difference” between the two candidates, you’re going to have to come up with a hell of a lot more than that.
Martin Wisse 10.16.04 at 12:19 am
Of course it wasn’t pandering to homophobes. Don’t be silly. Kerry made that remark to put this abstract issue on a personal footing. Just like I’d mention a gay acquintance when appropriate in a discussion.
Besides that, Mary Cheney has let her self be whored as the friendly face of the homophobe party, so who the fuck cares if her feelings were hurt by Kerry mentioning her
sexuality.
Because that’s the shameful part about Mary Cheney, that she is willing to let her self be used by a party who talks about her own kind as a threat to decent people, to the family and marriage, in language that is not that far from that used in 1930ties Germany…
If YOU think homosexuality is something decent people don’t mention about others, you are the homophoe and you are the problem.
Martin Wisse 10.16.04 at 12:19 am
Of course it wasn’t pandering to homophobes. Don’t be silly. Kerry made that remark to put this abstract issue on a personal footing. Just like I’d mention a gay acquintance when appropriate in a discussion.
Besides that, Mary Cheney has let her self be whored as the friendly face of the homophobe party, so who the fuck cares if her feelings were hurt by Kerry mentioning her
sexuality.
Because that’s the shameful part about Mary Cheney, that she is willing to let her self be used by a party who talks about her own kind as a threat to decent people, to the family and marriage, in language that is not that far from that used in 1930ties Germany…
If YOU think homosexuality is something decent people don’t mention about others, you are the homophoe and you are the problem.
jet 10.16.04 at 1:26 am
kvetch,
Surely you agree that legal gay marriage is less than a generation away, and probably a lot less. Bush’s FMA stands as much chance of passing as you thinking Sullivan a political genious.
If these two things are accurate, would seperate but equal laws, in the long run, prolong the period before everyone’s marriage is the same before the law? If not, would the good they do out weigh the harm done by this prolonging?
Heh, and locutor, you make my day. Such a fragile mind to toy with. Did the big bad scary conservative say racist and nazi words and hurt your feelings? Ahh, come here, you need a hug.
Either way this is all so far off topic, I actually feel bad for the author, and that is saying a lot for me, king of wandering. I’m interested in kvetch’s response, but I’m bowing out from the never ending thread.
Genia 10.16.04 at 3:07 am
I’m not quite sure why we’re analyzing the hell out this whole “Kerry mentioned Cheney’s lesbian daughter” issue, when the whole world knows she’s a lesbian and the whole world knows she was the head-dyke-in-charge of helping the Bush/Cheney duo work diligently to write discrimination into the constitution against homos. She helped them by keeping quiet. It was a loud, clear, and powerful message for the Republicans: “well, what we’re doing can’t be THAT wrong. The VP’s LESBIAN daughter works for us and she hasn’t made one complaint about our efforts.”
Even if I felt that Kerry delibertely insulted Mary Cheney, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass because Mary Cheney has insulted millions of homosexual Americans by sitting quietly and collecting a $150,000 paycheck to help her Daddy and his boss screw over us homosexuals. The only people in the Cheney family who spoke out against the measure was Lynne Cheney (first), then Dick Cheney shortly thereafter — months and months after the fact and ONLY after the measure was already defeated in the Senate. In the meantime, Mary Cheney continued to keep quiet and work hard for Daddy. If I, as a Black female, joined a movement that worked very hard to write discrimination into the Constitution aginast Black people (and got paid $150,000 a year to do so), I certainly wouldn’t expect much sympathy, empathy, kind words, support, or anything from other Black people in the free world — or anybody else who saw the complete hypocrisy in my behavior.
As for this comment: It’s always a low blow to critisize an opponent by dragging in their family. Criticize? How did he criticize. He called a spade a spade. She’s a lesbian. He called her a lesbian. Now I, on the other hand, I have criticized. Note the difference.
queerguy 10.16.04 at 11:35 am
If the GOP had pulled this stunt the left would be in a goddamned uproar.
K’s comment on Mary Cheney has backfired I will assure you.
queerguy 10.16.04 at 11:36 am
If the GOP had pulled this stunt the left would be in a goddamned uproar.
K’s comment on Mary Cheney has backfired I will assure you.
queerguy 10.16.04 at 11:36 am
If the GOP had pulled this stunt the left would be in a goddamned uproar.
K’s comment on Mary Cheney has backfired I will assure you.
queerguy 10.16.04 at 11:37 am
If the GOP had pulled this stunt the left would be in a goddamned uproar.
K’s comment on Mary Cheney has backfired I will assure you.
mona 10.16.04 at 4:06 pm
Mona, you are so 100% right.
The problem is with Kerry’s intent. (…snip…) it looks like the left is trying to elect someone who thinks using someone’s sexuality against their father is fine. Kerry is either a slime ball willing to do anything to win or a slime ball willing to use homo-phobia to win.
Jet, you’ve spectacularly misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Which was, and I should have made it clearer, I agree with Ted’s post, it’s clear the “outrage” is pathetic, and it does highlight the hypocrisy in the anti-gay right wing – I have no problem with Kerry’s intent, it’s political tactics, like I said, it was smart, I just couldn’t help feeling a bit put off by the style, but I can guarantee you I’m far more put off by those who do appeal to the homophobia of *their own* electoral base! Come on. It’s a no-brainer. It’s not Kerry’s fault that there is such a pathetic exploitation of homophobia, it’s not wrong to point it out, I just wish he’d done it in a more overt, more direct, more explicit way – but I suppose that’s not possible, sadly, and that is probably not Kerry’s fault either.
uncle kvetch – They needed to be called out on this dishonest rhetorical strategy in the most direct way possible.
Absolutely, and the more I read about the “outraged” reactions, the more I see that, and the less I am concerned about matters of style. I do agree with you there, I just thought, this was not the most direct way possible – *if* the “possible” extended beyond the current limits of electoral campaigns with all the preoccupations about not alienating this and that. I wish Kerry had taken a stronger stance, said something more forceful, less paternalistic, but it’s not him framing the discourse.
(I definitely wasn’t trying to say “poor Mary Cheney”!)
I’m with you on the question about choice too. I don’t even know what the point of that question was. It seemed to have more place in a debate among conservative religious leaders than presidential candidates.
Smooth Melon 10.16.04 at 5:29 pm
As a conservative who will vote for Bush/Cheney, I find this whole dust-up ridiculous.
First, if Dick Cheney didn’t want his daughter’s personal life dragged into the campaign, he shouldn’t have dragged her into it.
Second, if he is so indignant that his opponents brought her up, why didn’t he display his volcanic indignation after his debate with Edwards? The delayed explosion makes him look foolish, hypocritcal, and opportunistic. Isn’t that exactly what he’s accusing Kerry of?
Whoever is advising the Bush team needs a reality check.
This is yet another example of Bush/Cheney taking something out of context and twisting it in a lame attempt to gain points with voters. The whole “terror as a nuisance” thing is another shameful example.
The voters are served by a serious discussion of the candidates’ differences on the issues. These types of “gotcha” games are a distraction, a waste of time, and an insult to our intelligence.
My advice to Bush/Cheney: quit shooting yourselves in the collective foot. Every time you express righteous indignation, you’re putting your daughter front and center. Your phony protests are giving legs to this “issue.”
My advice to Kerry/Edwards: stick to the issues. Even if it appears that you have de facto permission to do so, don’t mention your opponents’ family to make your point. And don’t ever allow a staffer to refer to a candidate’s family member as “fair game,” even if she arguably is, as a member of the campaign team. That only makes you appear ruthless. Drop the sideshow and stick with what the voters need to know about your platform.
I think the only person who has behaved with dignity through this whole thing is Mary Cheney herself, who, to my knowledge, hasn’t uttered a word.
Scott Lemieux 10.16.04 at 5:35 pm
I would just like to note that all attempts to protray this as a smear by Kerry are just question-begging. People are simply assuming as fact that Kerry was trying to appeal to homophobes; the evidence for this claim is extremely weak (and, moreover, if it works it’s only because there are significant numbers of Republicans who would vote Democratic except for their homophobia. If Republicans rely on these votes, well, your bed, you lie in it.) ANd, again, calling this a smear rests on heterosexist assumption, period. There simply isn’t a “smear” here. Mary Cheney is a public figure, who Dick Cheney has often cited as evidence of his toleance (despite the Bush’s belief that gays should be made second-class citizens in the constitution, and his (as governor of TExas) his support for a law that criminalized same-sex sexual behavior. These contradictions, which Republicans would prefer not to face for obvious reasons, are not John KErry’s problem.
Finally, the obvious stupidity of this fake non-scandal can be seen in how is outraged. I see plenty of reactionaries, many with a long history of gay-baiting, but virtually no gay people. What does that tell you?
ap 10.16.04 at 10:54 pm
Well – mary cheney has not uttered a word because she is a liability to the party and they dont want to make her an issue.
Kerry : Whatever his intentions were mentioning that Mary is a lesbian is not wrong. She is =, ins’t she. So why is that wrong ? Is it a shameful fact ? I think Kerry was trying to show up the Republican party’s hypocrisy.
The republican anger was due to the fact that this information that they have so carefully kept in a low profile got relayed to millions of their homophobic base.
I’d be pretty pissed if someone drew attention to something I did not want attention to be drawn to.
This is the problem if the situation was reversed the republicans would have long ago milked the issue for all its worth and ruthless about it.
The democratic party has a conscience and that is making then lose this battle. If the ends justify the means then this is a no holds barred fight.
BTW I thought it was a joke but its not. Lynne cheney wrote a lesbian novel… Good for her!
But she should not have tried to stop penguin books from republishing it. Here is a link from a concerned citizen who has put up the text of the book
Sisters: A novel by Lynne Cheney
Cover page: http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp
Text:
http://www.livejournal.com/~lynnecheney/
I swear this is not a joke!
ap 10.16.04 at 11:03 pm
Well – mary cheney has not uttered a word because she is a liability to the party and they dont want to make her an issue.
Kerry : Whatever his intentions were mentioning that Mary is a lesbian is not wrong. She is =, ins’t she. So why is that wrong ? Is it a shameful fact ? I think Kerry was trying to show up the Republican party’s hypocrisy.
The republican anger was due to the fact that this information that they have so carefully kept in a low profile got relayed to millions of their homophobic base.
I’d be pretty pissed if someone drew attention to something I did not want attention to be drawn to.
This is the problem if the situation was reversed the republicans would have long ago milked the issue for all its worth and ruthless about it.
The democratic party has a conscience and that is making then lose this battle. If the ends justify the means then this is a no holds barred fight.
BTW I thought it was a joke but its not. Lynne cheney wrote a lesbian novel… Good for her!
But she should not have tried to stop penguin books from republishing it. Here is a link from a concerned citizen who has put up the text of the book
Sisters: A novel by Lynne Cheney
Cover page: http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp
Text:
http://www.livejournal.com/~lynnecheney/
I swear this is not a joke!
Smooth Melon 10.17.04 at 1:07 am
Look, I think you and I are on the same side in this one. But your arguments don’t seem cohesive with respect to the facts.
First, the information hasn’t been carefully hidden. Dick Cheney mentioned it himself. And if the anger is due to its exposure, it should have manifested itself when John Edwards mentioned it in the VP debate. It wasn’t. Why not? Did the Republicans drop the ball? Did they forget to be angry the first time? Or are they really not angry and trying to fabricate an issue?
Yes, I think Kerry was wrong in mentioning it, but from a tactical standpoint. Of course it isn’t shameful, and I never argued that it was. Just because something is true doesn’t make it tactically wise to bring it up. Teresa Heinz Kerry is goofy. Jenna Bush may be a drunk. True, yes. Tactically helpful? No.
If Kerry was trying to make a point about hypocricy, then he should have been forthright and make it strongly. He didn’t. So now he has a backlash, which is being unreasonably stoked by the Republicans.
My point is that the Republicans ARE milking this for all it’s worth, and shamefully so. I personally don’t think the Republicans were hiding this at all. I think that, after the VP debate, the Republican campaign team got together and said, “They must be trying to make some sort of point, but are too timid to do it directly. If they try that again, let’s feign indignation and make it backfire on them.” The mistake Kerry made was being timid. He either should have attacked the issue or avoided it.
Smooth Melon 10.17.04 at 1:08 am
Look, I think you and I are on the same side in this one. But your arguments don’t seem cohesive with respect to the facts.
First, the information hasn’t been carefully hidden. Dick Cheney mentioned it himself. And if the anger is due to its exposure, it should have manifested itself when John Edwards mentioned it in the VP debate. It wasn’t. Why not? Did the Republicans drop the ball? Did they forget to be angry the first time? Or are they really not angry and trying to fabricate an issue?
Yes, I think Kerry was wrong in mentioning it, but from a tactical standpoint. Of course it isn’t shameful, and I never argued that it was. Just because something is true doesn’t make it tactically wise to bring it up. Teresa Heinz Kerry is goofy. Jenna Bush may be a drunk. True, yes. Tactically helpful? No.
If Kerry was trying to make a point about hypocricy, then he should have been forthright and make it strongly. He didn’t. So now he has a backlash, which is being unreasonably stoked by the Republicans.
My point is that the Republicans ARE milking this for all it’s worth, and shamefully so. I personally don’t think the Republicans were hiding this at all. I think that, after the VP debate, the Republican campaign team got together and said, “They must be trying to make some sort of point, but are too timid to do it directly. If they try that again, let’s feign indignation and make it backfire on them.” The mistake Kerry made was being timid. He either should have attacked the issue or avoided it.
Smooth Melon 10.17.04 at 1:09 am
Look, I think you and I are on the same side in this one. But your arguments don’t seem cohesive with respect to the facts.
First, the information hasn’t been carefully hidden. Dick Cheney mentioned it himself. And if the anger is due to its exposure, it should have manifested itself when John Edwards mentioned it in the VP debate. It wasn’t. Why not? Did the Republicans drop the ball? Did they forget to be angry the first time? Or are they really not angry and trying to fabricate an issue?
Yes, I think Kerry was wrong in mentioning it, but from a tactical standpoint. Of course it isn’t shameful, and I never argued that it was. Just because something is true doesn’t make it tactically wise to bring it up. Teresa Heinz Kerry is goofy. Jenna Bush may be a drunk. True, yes. Tactically helpful? No.
If Kerry was trying to make a point about hypocricy, then he should have been forthright and make it strongly. He didn’t. So now he has a backlash, which is being unreasonably stoked by the Republicans.
My point is that the Republicans ARE milking this for all it’s worth, and shamefully so. I personally don’t think the Republicans were hiding this at all. I think that, after the VP debate, the Republican campaign team got together and said, “They must be trying to make some sort of point, but are too timid to do it directly. If they try that again, let’s feign indignation and make it backfire on them.” The mistake Kerry made was being timid. He either should have attacked the issue or avoided it.
Smooth Melon 10.17.04 at 1:11 am
Sorry about the multiple postings. I don’t know what I did wrong.
garblog 10.17.04 at 5:08 am
Of course Kerry was trying to make a point with his mention of Mary Cheney, BECAUSE she’s the daughter of the vice president. Her parents aren’t ashamed of her. If the whole B/C 04 ticket were ashamed of her, why would they have her working in the campaign? She’s openly gay, and obviously has no problem with her father’s political choices. Her mother is upset because it was obvious that Kerry was using her daughter’s name in front of the entire nation to prove a political point on gay marriage. Lynn Cheney doesn’t agree with Bush on this issue, but HE’S THE BOSS. Kerry was trying to put them on the spot USING HER DAUGHTER’S NAME. Any mother would be outraged that her daughter was shamelessly used for campaign fodder. If Bush had said, when Kerry was condemning the outsourcing of jobs from the U.S., “Hey, why don’t you get your wife to stop outsourcing 60% of the Heinz operations overseas?” That would have been a personal attack, right? The Dems would have been outraged. If, when they were discussing healthcare, Bush had brought up that preventive care would keep Americans healthier and if he had said “Hey, I noticed that John Edwards wife Elizabeth has a big ol’ fat ass. Not only is he an ambulance chaser, his wife is a big fat diabetic risk.” There again…personal. YOU JUST DON’T DO THAT, and for all of you pointy headed idiots who think it’s ok, you’re just disingenuous as hell. I’m a lesbian, but I’m not blinded by the hypocrisy which is the Democratic party. You people should just go back and read your tripe. By the way, I bet John Kerry has noticed that BLACKS are born that way too.
bummer 10.17.04 at 6:32 am
Kerry puts foot in mouth again.
Bushism’s don’t kill people, Kerry’s stupid remarks kill people!
Nichole 10.19.04 at 6:21 pm
Ya know, I couldve sworn that Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney were the ones we needed info about. I don’t recall Mary Cheney running for Pres. Kerry’s remark was a low blow, and a tactic to get the republicans to switch votes. He brought up the race issue and failed and now he trying for some more “dirt”. I’m a republican, I am proud for who Mary Cheney is and what she stands for, her sexual preference is no concern of mine and won’t make me change my vote for Bush. She has nothing to be ashamed about. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle DOES not mean you should slander it. Kerry needs a mannerism check. That man is no man, he is evil, a liar and cunning. My opinion, thats my freedom of speech.
Nichole 10.19.04 at 6:22 pm
Ya know, I couldve sworn that Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney were the ones we needed info about. I don’t recall Mary Cheney running for Pres. Kerry’s remark was a low blow, and a tactic to get the republicans to switch votes. He brought up the race issue and failed and now he trying for some more “dirt”. I’m a republican, I am proud for who Mary Cheney is and what she stands for, her sexual preference is no concern of mine and won’t make me change my vote for Bush. She has nothing to be ashamed about. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle DOES not mean you should slander it. Kerry needs a mannerism check. That man is no man, he is evil, a liar and cunning. My opinion, thats my freedom of speech.
enthymeme 10.20.04 at 3:19 am
https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001928.html
“Not in our name
Posted by Ted
“Left-of-center bloggers, could I have a quick word with you, before this becomes a problem?
“(huddle)
“Barbara and Jenna Bush are going to join their father’s campaign. There’s going to be a fair number of stories about them. They’re out of college, and many are going to consider attacks on them to be fair game. We shouldn’t.”
So Ted, may using Mary Cheney to make a political point be construed as an ‘attack’?
Is she fair game?
Does your May 28 post preclude using Bush’s daughters to make a political point? If not, are they fair game too?
“They make right wingers* look like cruel, petty people who attack the loved ones of their political opponents.”
Sure do.
alecs swinger 10.21.04 at 9:52 am
Hi this is message will be public? or hidden alecs swinger thank you
mona 10.21.04 at 1:41 pm
If Bush had said, when Kerry was condemning the outsourcing of jobs from the U.S., “Hey, why don’t you get your wife to stop outsourcing 60% of the Heinz operations overseas?†That would have been a personal attack, right? The Dems would have been outraged.
And that outrage would have been hypocrite too, because that criticism would have been a fair point. Theresa is even more part of the political campaign of her husband seen as she could be the next First Lady. She has spoken in public even more than Mary Cheney. And matters of business practice are even more of a political issue than sexual orientation.
Maybe the style of that hypothetical attack could be a *bit* better than “hey you why don’t you tell your wife to do that”, but the point is relevant.
If, when they were discussing healthcare, Bush had brought up that preventive care would keep Americans healthier and if he had said “Hey, I noticed that John Edwards wife Elizabeth has a big ol’ fat ass. Not only is he an ambulance chaser, his wife is a big fat diabetic risk.†There again…personal.
That’s different, that kind of attack would be stupid, rude, insulting, etc. because having a fat ass is, as far as I know, not a matter of political debate and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with obesity and healthcare.
The problem is that Kerry’s remark was neither the former kind – relevant, overt, explicit exposure of opponent hypocrisy – nor the latter – stupid, trite, insulting.
The problem is also that sexual orientation should not even be a matter of political debate. But that’s another story.
Comments on this entry are closed.