Posted on 10/15/2004 8:08:45 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
So Mary’s Gay?
What Kerry said, what the Cheneys said, and what we should think.
This will require magnanimity, savoir faire, and intense concentration. The objective: to opine on whether it was correct for Senator Kerry to make references to Mary Cheney as a lesbian.
The pros hold that an objective of the Democratic presidential challenger is inclusivity, and they make the point that there is nothing in the least invidious in calling attention to Ms. Cheney’s lesbianism.
Senator Kerry was commenting on the referee’s question, previously answered by President Bush, whether to be gay is a matter of choice, or a matter of biological determination. Bush had said he couldn’t give the final answer to this. Kerry said: All you need to reflect upon is that the daughter of your running mate is herself gay and isn’t for that reason in the least thought less of by her parents, or by me, or by the voting public.
Mr. Bush said nothing more, and there were no indications, on leavetaking, that he had been offended by the use of Ms. Cheney’s lesbianism to make a political point.
But that was not at all the reaction of dad and mom. Vice President Cheney said that Kerry’s remark about his daughter showed that the senator was “a man who will say and do anything in order to get elected.” He added that his indignation was not just that of a father, indeed a “pretty angry father,” but that of “a citizen.”
Mrs. Lynne Cheney — and she is a highbrow with a highbrow’s attention to the use of words — said that the episode had given her a chance to take the full measure of candidate Kerry. “And the only thing I could conclude is this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I am speaking as a mom and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”
It is not in question that Mary Cheney’s gayness had already become a part of the cast of characters in the political play. Senator Kerry was in no sense “outing” someone who had hidden her sexual impulses. So that the question narrowed to whether what was said was an expression of magnanimity and inclusiveness, or whether it was a bid for votes from the bigoted.
This last interpretation of it was taken by an evangelical Christian politician, Gary Bauer, who ran for the presidency four years ago. He reasoned as follows: that traditional-values voters would react to the public reference as to an animadversion against the Bush ticket, and that by saying what he had said, Kerry could reasonably hope “to knock l or 2 percent off in some rural areas by causing people to turn on the president.” This view holds that Kerry was in fact trading on bigotry. That position is of course irreconcilable with the position that Mr. Cheney has profited politically from publicizing his daughter’s gayness — that he has, in effect, said to the gay community: Look, my own beloved daughter is a member of the Cheney family, and a member also of the gay community. You can hardly suspect in the GOP ticket prejudice against gays, when you see that we have one in the family, whom we cherish?
Ah then, but another point is being made. It is that Cheney and Bush diverge in their view of the gay-lesbian questions. Early in the campaign, Cheney said that he believed any gay should have the identical rights of non-gays. Bush travels in that direction, but balks at marriage, which he holds to be a social institution devised to unite man and woman. Bush has therefore backed a constitutional amendment that would remove from the courts any authority to change that around by superimposing rights-language on the law, as has been done in Massachusetts and elsewhere, resulting in marriage ceremonies of man and man, and woman and woman.
The episode will put such questions on faster tracks than those they have been moving on. We will learn whether there are voters who don’t like the idea of a lesbian woman as a part of the royal family. We will learn whether Mary Cheney, who is working for the election of her father, will emerge as a great expediter of the constitutional amendment — whether she will emerge as the lady who called out that the rights she has are sufficient to guard the freedoms identified with the GOP ticket.
I'm guessing the latter.
It was a carefully concocted political stunt that blew up in his face. His attempts to fix it appear to be making things even worse.
I have a suggestion for Comrade Kerry...
I'll talk about my daughters and he can talk about HIS daughters....is that over the top?
Whatever Kerry's actual motive, it is certain that the comment was the result of pre planning and was intended to benefit his
campaign. As such, it was out of bounds th bring chenny's daughter into it.
Or maybe it was Kerry's way of creating such a stir about his remark about Mary Cheney that the media would have a circus with that and avoid discussion of his 20 year record or his policies. Hmmmm.
The way he leaves this piece sort of up in the air reflects his ambivalence on the subject, methinks.
OR Governor McGreevey....or Barney Frank.
I've been a fan of Bill Buckley but he is sailing around the point which is very simple - you do not go after the opponents' children in a campaign.
In debate the objective is to hurt the other side. There can be no question that Kerry's intention was to smear the Cheneys or to use Mary Cheney's sexuality as a club with which to hit her parents. It was a loathesome gambit.
Pat Caddell was on H&C - he said sKerry did it for HIS base - to try to keep black voters from voting for W.
<< I've been a fan of Bill Buckley but he is sailing around the point which is very simple - you do not go after the opponents' children in a campaign. >>
Exactly, and you certainly don't call them "fair game."
No debate is ever won by the 'man who'argument. 'I know a man who smoked for 40 years and never yada yada yada" In this case it's the 'I know a lesbian who...' A single case does not a generalization make. Kerry knows this. So the reason he brought it up was not to make debating points.
A couple good points I've heard made about this are:
1. Is Mary Cheney the only gay person that Kerry and Edwards know? Why didn't they bring up McGreevey or Gephardt's daughter...if their motive was just to name a gay person.
2. The reason Edwards mentioning Mary Cheney was not as offensive is that Gwen Iffil had mentioned Mary Cheney, by name, in the question she posed to Edwards and Cheney.
So when Edwards commented on her, it was in context. Kerry on the other hand didn't need to "name" anyone, in order to answer the question.
Well, that would be even more out of the blue since Gephardt is not involved in the campaign. I can see Kerry's wanting to choose some person in the public eye in order to speak concretely. But to choose Mary is sooooo pointed.
Buckley leaves me hanging here. I expected more.
"Fool me once, (John Edwards) shame on you.
Fool me twice, (John F'n Kerry) shame on me."
Clearly their insults were meant to hurt, taunt, demean the Cheney family and I find myself wondering if this isn't their payback for Cheney's insult to Leaky Leahy on the floor of the senate.
Whatever, it was tacky and rude. I hope they pay.
Count me among those who are positive that it was the latter.
Bottom line, it shows Kerry’s lack of judgment, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.