How Dare He? HOW DARE HE?

[Rspaight]

I'm not sure what's more pathetic -- the fact that the Repubs are attacking Kerry for daring to mention that Mary Cheney is (gasp) gay, or the fact that the story is gaining traction.

Consider:

1) Mary Cheney is an adult.
2) Mary Cheney is openly gay.
3) Mary Cheney has used her sexuality to get cushy jobs (head of gay marketing at Coors).
4) Mary Cheney is the head of Dick's campaign.
5) Dick Cheney has invoked the sexuality of his daughter to score points with the HRC at campaign events, and has publicly differed with Bush on the amendment issue.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Mary Cheney is avoiding the limelight, not involved in the campaign, closeted in any way, shy about her orientation, or unable to handle being mentioned on the national stage. Nada. Zero.

The only way these hysteric attacks make any sense is if the people doing the attacking believe that calling an openly gay person, well, gay is a shameful thing. Lynne Cheney's real message -- "How dare John Kerry remind me of the shame I feel about my daughter's sexuality!" If I were Mary, I'd be a lot more pissed off about what Mom (and later Dad) said than what John Kerry said. (Interestingly, the one person we *haven't* heard from about this is Mary Cheney.)

Try this -- imagine if Bush had proposed a Constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage. Would it be out of bounds to point out that Bush buddy Sen. Mitch McConnell has an Asian wife (who happens to be Bush's Secretary of Labor)? Of course not. Kerry's name-check just underscores the moral repugnance of Bush's backing of legislation that specifically aims to deny rights to his vice-president's daughter.

This is a desperate move by a desperate campaign. Sadly, it'll probably be effective.

Ryan

[czeskleba]

So Lynne Cheney said something to the effect of it being a cheap and tawdry political trick for Kerry to mention Mary Cheney. I honestly don't get this. Can someone help me understand the Republican mind here? First of all, why do they consider it a bad thing that he mentioned their daughter's sexuality? And second of all, how is it a political trick? What would Kerry hope to gain politically by this?

[Grant]

They are just tyring to use it as a political move because their boy Bush is losing ground. What Kerry said also puts them in a tense position with the christian right base that believes homosexuality is a choice.

[Mike Hunte]

So Lynne Cheney said something to the effect of it being a cheap and tawdry political trick for Kerry to mention Mary Cheney. I honestly don't get this. Can someone help me understand the Republican mind here?

Well, I'm not a Republican mind. But let me take a shot anyway. It has to do with the ol' Republican spin machine tactic of trying to create a "story" out of a non-story (i.e. TELL the American people that something "offensive" just happened, then have your shill media POLL them instantly to show "proof" of just how offended they are). Thus, in effect, creating a non-story out of the TRUE story (i.e. the fact that Bush got his ass whipped in the debate - both factually and in form. Afterall, can't have people talking about that at work the next day). They're masters of taking a story they don't like...and simply changing it into another one that serves them better.

Anybody with a brain larger than a pea needs to be aware that Mary is a proud, long ago SELF-OUTED lesbian. And as already pointed out, one who has been used politically, along with her life-partner, by her father to help soften his image when need be. Furthermore, someone who WORKS for Coors in that capacity (i.e. as a liason for the gay community). She's not some poor, innocent bystander who was plucked out of obscurity and shamed for political gain.

The fact is, Kerry's statement was a simple, subtle check showing the hypocrisy between the Republican Party's own intolerant stand on Gay Rights and the reality of Cheney's very real lesbian daughter. ISN'T THAT THE ENTIRE POINT OF A DEBATE? I guess it only becomes a "political trick" when you're the one on the receiving end of a wake-up call.

Of course, there's "nothing" at all offensive with Cheney telling everybody that if Kerry's elected that there will be a "devastating attack" on our country by terrorists.

Or better yet, this now generally accepted mockery of the word "liberal." Can you imagine if Kerry tried to demonize the word "conservative?"...."George Bush, just another Texas Conservative." The citizens of Texas would be calling for his head as if he had just mocked Christ's name. Maybe, we should instant poll everything truly offensive that drips from the Prez and Veep's mouth.

The Republicans are aware of all this and have, in addition, become masters of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Theorem in recent years as well. Like "Clapton is God," say it often enough and it becomes part of the lexicon.

later,
Waffler Hunte.

[czeskleba]

Anybody with a brain larger than a pea needs to be aware that Mary is a proud, long ago SELF-OUTED lesbian.

I'm still not sure what Kerry's supposed "offense" was. Was it that he violated Mary Cheney's privacy by mentioning her? Are they accusing him of outing her? Are they claiming it's offensive to mention someone's relative in any context in a political debate? I mean, I understand the real reason is that the Cheneys think it's a shameful thing to mention their daughter is a lesbian because they themselves are ashamed of it, but I still don't really get what their pretend reason for taking offense is.

[Rspaight]

It's traditionally considered "out-of-bounds" to refer to a politician's family in a political context outside of the normal "lovely wife and fine children" platitudes. This is especially true of minors (see Rush Limbaugh referring to then-12-year-old Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog"). If a family member does not wish to be "in the game," you're supposed to respect that.

However, when the politician (Cheney) has already used his daughter's orientation as a political tool (and the daughter is a thirtysomething adult who runs her dad's campaign and is so "out" she takes jobs based on her sexuality), I'd think it's fair game for use by the other side. (Especially when Kerry didn't say anything negative about her.) Mary Cheney is very much "in the game."

Some on the right suggest that bringing up Mary's orientation was a ploy by Kerry to cost Bush the homophobe vote. I'd say Bush has the homophobe vote locked up, so that would have been a silly strategy. It's clear that Kerry simply meant to shine a bright light on the fact that Bush is pushing to deny rights to his VP's daughter, and thus illustrate Bush's willingness to pursue the bigot vote to the detriment of those around him.

Ryan

[Mike Hunte]

Again, this is a simple example of the Republicans changing what would have been the story of the day (i.e. the debate itself) into something totally unrelated to the reality of what went down. Funny how they were't offended by this remark the first two times...only when they needed some ammo of their own to deflect the bombs.

I IMMEDIATELY listened to several pundits post-debate (on both sides of the coin) and NONE of them even mentioned this comment in their analysis. If they didn't catch it as a "red-flag," I'm sure the American people wouldn't have seen it as such either. That is, until they were told to (in this case, by Lynne Cheney and several well-placed "journalists"). Again, tell the people what to think, then measure just how "offended" they are as some sort of proof.

The fact is that this election should be about ISSUES, and this is what the Republican Party fears the most. Whenever it does come back to this, they know just how much the're going to be caught with their pants down. They know that if most Americans truly knew how exclusive and cruel the platform really is...they'd be bailing as fast as one can say "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

This is NOT the party of Reagan anymore (listening Matt?). This isn't a laissez-faire, let the chips fall as they may administration. This is an intolerant, greedy, hate-filled party with a hard-line, RIGHT-WING nutcase theocrat at the helm. 10 years from now (if elected), when the courts are stacked and the clock is turned back 50 years....Americans will be scratching their heads as to why this all happened.

As Jon Stewart said, it's all about theatre now. The Republicans know that the REAL issues are their biggest liability in this election. Instead, give them Dittohead Theatre (TM) and win votes that way. It's easier to spew three-word, catch-phrase rhetoric and somehow convince people that the guy who sat out of Vietnam is a "great" warrior (never mind the fact that all he's managed to do is actually make this country UNSAFER in the process).

It's up to everyone here who gives a rat's ass about the future to remind all as to what's at risk for our future. Reproductive choice, COMPLETE erosion of the TRUE middle-class, and a world where diplomacy has been thrown out the window. The media certainly isn't going to do it. It's not a good enough story...

All of you Democrats out there...get energized, KEEP FIGHTING! Talk to people one-by-one. The truth will always set them free.

DM

[lukpac]

I didn't think your mom let you out, Mr. Hunte.

And here's an example of exactly what MH is saying. Oh, the outrage!

Is Mary Cheney a gay pawn? Her father can answer that

The Democratic challenger finds himself under fire from both left and right after mentioning Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter
Joanna Walters in Arizona
Sunday October 17, 2004

The Observer
If the scandal was about John Kerry and gay porn, that would be one thing. But John Kerry and a gay pawn? Now that's something completely different.

Gays and lesbians have reacted with anger to the latest twist in the US election - but not with Kerry for bringing up the subject of Vice-President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, during the presidential 'Duel in the Desert' in Arizona last week.

No, gays are furious that the Cheneys are, supposedly, furious, and that the mainstream media has whipped itself up into a frenzy over the issue.

Instead of headlines about Kerry's successful performance in the three debates and how they could project him into the White House, it's suddenly all about Mary.

The controversy arose after the moderator in last Wednesday's TV debate asked both candidates if they thought being gay was a matter of choice or birth. President George Bush responded that he did not know the answer. His Democratic challenger said: 'We're all God's children. 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 talk to anybody, it's not a choice.'

Cheney is now officially quoted as an 'angry father', while his wife, Lynn, is an 'indignant mom', saying of Kerry: 'This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.' Kerry lost his edge again in some of the polls.

But Cheney himself frequently mentions Mary as his 'gay daughter' on the campaign trail when he is trying to paint his party as compassionate conservatives, so being used is nothing new.

She is a leading light in the Bush-Cheney team, came out of the closet a few years ago and has worked as an advocate for gay-friendly employment rights in big corporations.

'The right are masters of turning people into political pawns. They invented it and now the Democrats are turning the tables. Kerry is being bold, strategically standing up for Mary, and the Republicans are shook up, that's all,' said New York TV producer and gay rights commentator Nancy Swartz.

It is not clear if the Cheneys are angry at the politics getting personal in general or whether it is the specific public declaration of Mary's sexuality. Jane Czyzselska, editor of Diva, the UK monthly magazine for lesbians and bisexual women, has a simple theory as to why the media are so agitated. 'A lot of the mainstream media are still scared witless of gays and lesbians, and this ridiculous display of horror at the mention of Mary Cheney - gasp - THE LESBIAN, just shows it,' she said.

Mary lives openly with her long-term girlfriend in Colorado. If Cheney does not want conservative voters reminded of that, in a kind of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' silent-tolerance policy, then it's much too late.

She is not the first and she will not be the last individual to be dragged into the political spotlight. It's always hard for the person and their families. When the insincerity of political preaching is exposed by the personal hypocrisy of those involved, pawns have to come into play.

Bush is trying actively to ban gay marriage with a rare amendment to the Constitution. Neither Dick nor Mary Cheney will publicly condemn this move, with the Vice-President muttering that he loves his daughter and supports his President. Untenable?

'He stands behind his boss and she stands behind her father. Cheney is choosing Bush over his own family, and Mary is giving up a part of her identity,' said Swartz.

For this reason, the gay community has been officially ambivalent towards its lukewarm champion Mary Cheney.

Meanwhile, right-wing Christians within the Republican movement call Dick Cheney's tactic the classic evangelicals' approach to awkward realities - love the sinner, hate the sin. Bush is in this camp, expounding tolerance while pushing anti-gay policies. It's the same story with racial equality.

What Kerry did on Wednesday night was help to expose the double standards. Unfortunately for him, it backfired, and not only by sucking a couple of polling points away from what should have been his moment of glory.

Gay men and lesbians are furious with Kerry, not for using Mary as a political pawn but for exposing his own double standards. In the same breath, Kerry spoke passionately for gay freedom and for marriage as an institution that should be enjoyed only by a man and a woman.

Many in the gay community believe that the battle for marriage - with rebel weddings and court challenges, etc - has slowed down the campaign for equal rights on tax, employment and inheritance by goading conservatives into a backlash to defend their sacred institution.

But the cat is out of the bag and now so is Kerry's position - he is against. But most gay voters will still choose Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

The real tragedy is that debates and headlines in 2004 even need to be about lesbianism as an 'issue' when war, poverty, disease, dictatorship and genocide - topics that are, rightly, much higher up Kerry's priority list - are costing lives.

If the so-called issue of Contrary Mary ends up sinking Kerry's race for the White House, that would be the true scandal.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Mike Hunte]

Gay men and lesbians are furious with Kerry, not for using Mary as a political pawn but for exposing his own double standards. In the same breath, Kerry spoke passionately for gay freedom and for marriage as an institution that should be enjoyed only by a man and a woman.

There's a vast difference in the two platforms that needs to be stressed.

Quoting Andrew Sullivan:

"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?..."

[Rspaight]

Saying Bush and Kerry are equivalent on this issue is just wrong. I'm not a big fan of Sullivan, but the above quote sums it up well.

As far as I'm concerned, government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and *only* offer civil unions for hetero and homo couples. If those couples want to go to a church and get a sacred "marriage," fine. Leave it up to the church to decide if the couple reflects the moral traditions the church espouses. If not, they still get the gov't benefits and legal rights.

Ryan