Okay, I feel I should weigh in on the whole John-Kerry-mentioning-Mary-Cheney flap. The far right is freaking out about this. I don't think it's becasue they want to protect Mary Cheney
s privacy, but because they think that being gay is shameful. Lynne Cheney is saying that John Kerry is "not a good man."
I have a few opinions. First, this really shows how scared the far right is concerning homosexuality. For them it is shameful and should be something that is not talked about, in other words keep it in the closet.
Second, there is a little bit of an orchestrated protest here. No one seemed upset when the Vice President himself brought up the fact that he had a gay daughter. Also no one seemed upset when John Edwards did the same thing last week. It seems like the Bush campaign and their far right allies want to use this opportunity to slam John Kerry as opportunistic and mean.
Third, what John Kerry did was opportunistic. If you were John Kerry and you faced an opponent who supports an anti-gay amendment and whose base is virulently homophobic, wouldn't you find someway to needle them about that? I would. I would want to let the homophobes know that gay rights affect everyone, including them. There was a saying back in the 90s that stated that gays "are everywhere," meaning we are your mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. We are pastoring your churches, serving in the military, running small businesses and so on. We are not a radical fringe, but part of the very fabric of American society.
However, John Kerry probably should have left mentioning Mary alone. Mickey Kaus noted if a white candidate had a black spouse, and the other candidate mentioned that when talking about race, it would be considered a little over the top. I think Kerry could have made the point without talking about Mary, but it was kinda like a tempting apple that he had to bite into.
So, part of me clucks my tounge at Mr. Kerry while another part says, "that was so cool, sticking it to the far right."
And that's my two cents.
Posted by Dennis at October 15, 2004 08:21 AMI wonder what would happen if a white guy refered to keyes by the N word because i bet the person would get yelled at.because there seems to be a double standard.
Posted by: werewolffan98 at December 30, 2005 07:33 PMbecause Alana Keyes is a wack that nobody cares about. why raise his stature by a response from the VP of the US.
this flap is not going to change the way anyone votes but at least be honest. kerry did this intentionally. it was part of his debate game plan.
Posted by: mike at October 17, 2004 05:07 AM"Why didn't the Cheneys protest when Alan Keyes insulted gays?"
Remember, he didn't insult gays. He specifically insulted Mary Cheney.
Posted by: Brian at October 15, 2004 09:28 PMI totally agree with Brian. Why didn't the Cheneys protest when Alan Keyes insulted gays? Amazing!
Posted by: Pedro A. Romanach at October 15, 2004 08:55 PMWhat I find interesting is that Mary Cheney is not being interviewed over this. She is probably not doing interviews because if she WOULD interview, she'd disaggree with the Bush administration with the way they are using gays as political footballs.
Mary has a history of being a "professional gay" with her work at Coors beer, so the suggestion that she was "outed" is bizarre. In August Dick Cheney referred to Mary as his "gay daughter."
I also find it interesting that the Cheney's did not respond when Jerry Falwell referred to Mary as "errant" 4 years ago during the 2000 campaign, or when Alan Keyes called her a "selfish hedonist".
4 years ago, Mary Cheney was doing fundraising for the Bush-Cheney campaign within the gay community.
I think Andrew Sullivan has it right on this one.
Now I wonder if Alan Simpson will go on TV to bash Kerry over this. I have not seen him quoted on this - and I think what he'd say on this subject would be quite interesting.
Posted by: Eva Young at October 15, 2004 08:04 PMOops! I should be thanking Dale. Thanks, Dale.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2004 05:26 PMThanks, Brian, for your comment. I sent it on to A. Sullivan. Andrew apparently believes that the world is as Emerson said it should be, organized so people can act "as a young man assured of his dinner." Would be nice.
Unfortunately, individuals and families are at many different stages in processing this relatively new reality (to many straights), that some of us don't fit the cookie cutter binary model. The answer is to not impose the "they're all a bunch of homophobes" response on a situation that is much more complex than we know.
I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. If you have trouble doing that, read Frank Bruni's Ambling into History.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2004 05:25 PMI really didn't like it when Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter either ...
Edwards brought it up because it was part of the question both he and the Vice President were asked.
Kerry brought it up because he wanted to make a point that being homosexual is not a moral failing and that in the end any discussion about homosexuality is about human beings and not an absract argument.
As people have pointed out Mary Cheney has been used by just about everyone, including the Cheneys, to make a point.
But all that doesn't matter.
There is NO way to come out looking like a winner in an argument with a mother that concerns her daughter. There simply is NO way.
Mary Cheney has set new rules of engagement as far as talking about her daughter is concerned - John Kerry can't talk about her - that's the rule.
He should publically acknowledge that rule by apologizing for bringing it up. And move on.
People know what's going on.
Posted by: dorsano at October 15, 2004 05:24 PMI think the best post I've read on this so far was the lead article on http://defeatjohnjohn.com/ today, which (I think correctly) identified the problem not as Kerry mentioning Mary as a lesbian but WHY he did it. That's what people like Andrew Sullivan are missing.
Posted by: Dale Cartwright at October 15, 2004 02:09 PMIt's worth noting that when right-wing lunatic Alan Keyes calling Mary Cheney a "hedonist," there was no response from the Cheneys to that overt insult
Posted by: Brian at October 15, 2004 01:16 PMI really didn't like it when Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter either, although for some reason I felt he was a little more tactful/sincere than Kerry was...
I think my issue with it is that you just shouldn't use an opponent's daughter (or son) for political gain. Its bad form.