Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, October 15, 2004 |
OT: Private Is A Rank In The Army
Richard sounds off on Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney's sexual preferences. I want to run a brief rebuttal here because I generally can't stand the Republican Party's hypocrisy on such matters. If you're offended by suchlike, I promise this blog will go back to baseball coverage presently. In the meantime:
Vice President Cheney: "I would have said Sen. Kerry was out of line to bring my daughter into it. I thought it was totally inappropriate."Except that, sorry, Dick, you brought it up first. In today's Los Angeles Times, we discover that he himself raised this issue back in August, "in relation to the issue of gay marriage, at a town hall in August."
Second, to the question of whether this amounts to a personal attack of some kind, I can respond to that in three ways. First, Mary Cheney isn't just a private individual merely related to the Vice President -- she's helped run his campaign:
In the current campaign, the younger of the Cheneys' two daughters has served as director of vice presidential operations. She has been described as one of her father's closest political confidants.Second, the Republicans opened this particular can of whoop-ass by attempting to fire up a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide. When one of your "closest political confidants" might be negatively affected by a bill your party sponsors, the Republicans opened themselves to a long list of charges, hypocrisy among them. (Cheney, to his credit, publically denounced the bill.)
Third, consider the text of the comments Kerry made:
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. I think if you talked to anybody, it's not [a] choice.This is a personal attack? Well, no surprise it's taken that way. The Republican party has a big problem: it can't win national elections without the help of its Christian footsoldiers, and a lot of them are profoundly uncomfortable -- hostile, even -- to just the idea of homosexuality. So when, at the GOP convention, the Cheneys took the stage with their other, straight daughter and her husband, conspicuously absent was Mary Cheney and her partner.
Imagine if the Cheneys had a half-black stepchild who didn't appear at the podium that night because "it might cause a stir". Does anybody, for a second, think the country wouldn't be in an uproar over such second-class, back-of-the-bus-you treatment?
Update: Thanks to Vishal for pointing out Andrew Sullivan's commentary on this matter. The real problem is that the Republican party, as I mentioned earlier, contains a large number of homophobes. Cheney, and likely Bush, do not fit into this category, but for political reasons are required to act as though they disapprove of Mary's sexual preferences.
Gary Bauer has long denied he's anti-gay, or catering to anti-gay prejudice. But this morning he came clean, in referring to Kerry's mentioning Mary Cheney's lesbianism:Yup."I think it is part of a strategy to suppress traditional-values voters, to knock 1 or 2 percent off in some rural areas by causing people to turn on the president."Think about that for a minute. Bauer believes that his core supporters would be likely to "turn" on the president just because the vice-president's daughter is a lesbian. Notice that there's no indication of homosexual "acts", just a revulsion at Mary Cheney's simple identity as a lesbian. This is their base. This is why they're worried. Some of the subtler arguments I've heard overnight say the following: it's not that homosexuality is wrong; it's just that many people believe that and Kerry therefore exploited their homophobia to gain a point. I don't buy it, but let's assume the worst in Kerry's motives for the sake of argument. What these emailers are saying is that Kerry should hedge what he says in order to cater to the homophobia of Bush's base. Why on earth should he? The truth here is obvious: Bush and Cheney are closet tolerants. They have no problem with gay people personally; but they use hostility to gay people for political purposes, even if it means attacking members of their own families. What they are currently objecting to is the fact that their hypocrisy has been exposed. To which the only answer is: if you don't want to be exposed as a hypocrite, don't be one.
Comments:
First of all, for the hundredth fucking time, it’s not an attack on Mary Cheney. I’m getting real tired of explaining this. The problem is that Kerry used the fact that Mary Cheney is gay to attack Bush/Cheney politically. He intended to alienate the President’s evangelical base (and if you don’t think so than you’re kidding yourself)- and no matter what you think of that portion of society, using your opponents family in that way is ridiculous and off limits- always has been.
Secondly, the fact that Mary Cheney works on the campaign, and her father has spoken of her in the past, does not make her a public figure, nor does it make her “fair game”. By that reasoning both of Bush’s daughters, all of Kerry’s children, all the candidates’ wives and Kerry’s first wife are fair game as well. Leave the families out of this!
Also, don’t think Kerry doesn’t pander to the anti-gay elements of his party as well. It’s a key cog in his courting of the African-American vote.
Secondly, the fact that Mary Cheney works on the campaign, and her father has spoken of her in the past, does not make her a public figure, nor does it make her “fair game”. By that reasoning both of Bush’s daughters, all of Kerry’s children, all the candidates’ wives and Kerry’s first wife are fair game as well. Leave the families out of this!
Also, don’t think Kerry doesn’t pander to the anti-gay elements of his party as well. It’s a key cog in his courting of the African-American vote.
None of Bush's daughters are, so far as I know, running his election campaign. Wrong again, Richard.
The Republicans opened the door. They have only themselves to "blame", but the sneer quotes are on purpose here. They want to write stupid laws? They want to politicize the private? Then don't get offended when it turns around on you.
The Republicans opened the door. They have only themselves to "blame", but the sneer quotes are on purpose here. They want to write stupid laws? They want to politicize the private? Then don't get offended when it turns around on you.
She's not running anything, Rob. And even if she was, that does not make her a public figure and it doesn't make her fair game.
One more thing: Cheney's daughter's choice of friends might "alienate the President’s evangelical base"? Good. They need to learn a thing or two about the real world. Like I said in the entry, Cheney brought it up first. It's on the table. The Christian right can get their own candidates, or shut up and live with this one.
Anybody directly connected to any political campaign is automatically a public figure, especially a (vice-)presidential one! In what universe is that not true?
Jesus Christ Rob. Your saying that it's ok because "these people are meanies, gosh darn't I don't like them much at all." Listen to yourself. You sound like an ass.
Goddamn Rob, literally millions of Americans are "directly linked" to these campaigns. I'm directly linked to the Bush campaign. That doesn't make me a public figure.
"anti-miscegenation laws?" What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything?
The Christian right wants to insert a federal nose into what is essentially a matter for the states. I see no functional difference here between the position that gays shouldn't even exist lest they offend the easily-offended creepos in the Christian right and that of the idea that laws ought to prevent blacks from marrying whites. These aren't just meanies -- these are meanies who intend, through force of law, to try and roll back the real world. It is they who are revolting.
Yes, good Rob. Just call anyone who disagrees with your assessment of marriage as homophobes and racists. Real tolerant of you.
Are there ignorant gay-hating bastards out there? Yes, of course there are. But I do not appreciate your attempt to lump me, and the vast majority of traditional marriage advocates, in with those people. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, and therefore any attempt by the state to define marriage is an attempt to define religion, and therefore a violation of the separation of church and state.
Perhaps next time you should attempt to understand the argument before you jump to conclusions.
Are there ignorant gay-hating bastards out there? Yes, of course there are. But I do not appreciate your attempt to lump me, and the vast majority of traditional marriage advocates, in with those people. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, and therefore any attempt by the state to define marriage is an attempt to define religion, and therefore a violation of the separation of church and state.
Perhaps next time you should attempt to understand the argument before you jump to conclusions.
i fail to understand how the mere mention of mary cheney as being gay is such an outrage unless you think there's something wrong about being gay, and that even mentioning a gay person is offensive. i think the republican camp's reaction is pure posturing, and they're trying to have it both ways. andrew sullivan has it right on this one.
-vishal
-vishal
# posted by 
: 10/15/2004 01:05:00 PM
: 10/15/2004 01:05:00 PM
first of all, she was already brought up in the veep debates, and she's an active part of the campaign. i don't want to use the term "fair game", because i don't think she was being hunted or attacked at all just by being mentioned, but i think that it's not completely preposterous to reference her in passing, as kerry did. the question was about whether or not being gay is a choice, and it makes at least some sense to bring up someone bush presumably knows and is familiar with to rebut his "i don't know" answer. it's like kerry was saying, "you don't know? ask this person involved in your very own campaign. i'm sure she would tell you all about it, if you were interested in talking about this issue."
i thought kerry's entire answer to that question was cogent and sensible. sure, referencing mary cheney wasn't NECESSARY, but i don't see how it's out of line, your conspiracy theory aside.
i thought kerry's entire answer to that question was cogent and sensible. sure, referencing mary cheney wasn't NECESSARY, but i don't see how it's out of line, your conspiracy theory aside.
# posted by : 10/15/2004 01:27:00 PM
: 10/15/2004 01:27:00 PM
Richard -- I reiterate my question: in what way is the amendment prohibiting gay marriage any different from anti-miscegenation laws? It's all about a third party getting in the way of an arrangement two consenting adults wish to make. Moreover, it interferes with the Constitutional operation of the various states by prohibiting something that they singly might allow
As Vishal said, this is posturing. The Christian right is scared. They should be.
As Vishal said, this is posturing. The Christian right is scared. They should be.
Anti-miscegenation laws? They were racially discriminatory, simple as that. There’s no such argument to be made against the most of the Traditional Marriage movement (notice that I have never claimed to be a supporter of the Defense of Marriage Amendment, because I feel there is an discrimination argument to made against it). The simple act of saying “marriage is a union between one man and one woman" is no more discriminatory than saying “only women are allowed in the ladies room”, as long as you don’t limit the rights that come along with marriage (don’t confuse this with “separate but equal”- because it’s clearly not the same issue, as any court would attest).
Also, another key portion of anti-miscegenation laws that blow your little comparison out of the water is the fact that they also extended into the realm of personal privacy by outlawing sexual relations between the races. No reasonable person is advocating anything of the sort in this current situation (note the lack of outcry when anti-sodomy laws were abolished).
And, with that, my participation in this thread (which was once about Mary Cheney, right?) is brought to a close. I can only be compared to racists so many times before I begin to lose interest.
Also, another key portion of anti-miscegenation laws that blow your little comparison out of the water is the fact that they also extended into the realm of personal privacy by outlawing sexual relations between the races. No reasonable person is advocating anything of the sort in this current situation (note the lack of outcry when anti-sodomy laws were abolished).
And, with that, my participation in this thread (which was once about Mary Cheney, right?) is brought to a close. I can only be compared to racists so many times before I begin to lose interest.
The simple act of saying “marriage is a union between one man and one woman" is no more discriminatory than saying “only women are allowed in the ladies room”, as long as you don’t limit the rights that come along with marriage (don’t confuse this with “separate but equal”- because it’s clearly not the same issue, as any court would attest).Indeed, there are courts where you would get an argument on that one, something the Christian right is terrified of.
Also, another key portion of anti-miscegenation laws that blow your little comparison out of the water is the fact that they also extended into the realm of personal privacy by outlawing sexual relations between the races. No reasonable person is advocating anything of the sort in this current situation (note the lack of outcry when anti-sodomy laws were abolished).I'm not especially interested in speculation about the intent of the anti-miscegenation laws as their content, which was to prevent the marriage of people the writers didn't want to see married. It sure looks like the problem the Christian right has with gay marriage is that it could legitimize something they deeply disapprove of -- even if it occurs in another state. No matter though. The freakout by Lynne Cheney after Kerry's innocuous comment, Mary's absence at the party acceptance speech, the horrified treatment of an openly gay daughter as though she were an embarrassment, are all symptoms that this branch of the Republican party has some serious growing up to do. This is a fight they will lose if they choose to continue it. In the meantime, all they look is stupid for carrying it on.
Also, another key portion of anti-miscegenation laws that blow your little comparison out of the water is the fact that they also extended into the realm of personal privacy by outlawing sexual relations between the races. No reasonable person is advocating anything of the sort in this current situation (note the lack of outcry when anti-sodomy laws were abolished).I'm not especially interested in speculation about the intent of the anti-miscegenation laws as their content, which was to prevent the marriage of people the writers didn't want to see married. It sure looks like the problem the Christian right has with gay marriage is that it could legitimize something they deeply disapprove of -- even if it occurs in another state. No matter though. The freakout by Lynne Cheney after Kerry's innocuous comment, Mary's absence at the party acceptance speech, the horrified treatment of an openly gay daughter as though she were an embarrassment, are all symptoms that this branch of the Republican party has some serious growing up to do. This is a fight they will lose if they choose to continue it. In the meantime, all they look is stupid for carrying it on.
Quoting the full paragraph:
"Secondly, the fact that Mary Cheney works on the campaign, and her father has spoken of her in the past, does not make her a public figure, nor does it make her “fair game”. By that reasoning both of Bush’s daughters, all of Kerry’s children, all the candidates’ wives and Kerry’s first wife are fair game as well. Leave the families out of this!"
You mean like the Republicans did with Hillary? Their reason for making Hillary Clinton a constant subject for their attacks was that she was involved heavily with the decision making by the Clinton campaigns and administrations. Mary Cheney has been a high ranking employee of her father's campaign. She is by his own admission one of his most trusted advisors, which is how Bill Clinton referred to his wife. I don't believe there's a difference here, except that the democrats aren't constantly slandering Mary Cheney.
"Secondly, the fact that Mary Cheney works on the campaign, and her father has spoken of her in the past, does not make her a public figure, nor does it make her “fair game”. By that reasoning both of Bush’s daughters, all of Kerry’s children, all the candidates’ wives and Kerry’s first wife are fair game as well. Leave the families out of this!"
You mean like the Republicans did with Hillary? Their reason for making Hillary Clinton a constant subject for their attacks was that she was involved heavily with the decision making by the Clinton campaigns and administrations. Mary Cheney has been a high ranking employee of her father's campaign. She is by his own admission one of his most trusted advisors, which is how Bill Clinton referred to his wife. I don't believe there's a difference here, except that the democrats aren't constantly slandering Mary Cheney.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.