So only Cheney is allowed to state that his daugher is: female, blonde, Republican, American, white, American…?
That whole line of reasoning is crap, because it still assumes that homosexuality is something of which to be ashamed, rather than simply a neutral description of one aspect of her as a normal, healthy human being.
No, the point is that it was wholly unnecessary to mention her at all. His point was simply “Homosexuals don’t choose their orientation.” There’s no reason he has to name anyone; but if he really felt it necessary to name a specific homosexual, he could have picked someone close to him, or one of his gay colleagues in Congress. I highly doubt if you asked him to name a gay person off the top of his head, he’d say Mary Cheney. But he used her deliberately for political effect. Tacky.
No, I think his point is the very normalcy of our bent brethren and sistren. Normal and respectable families, of which the Cheneys are clearly one, have homosexual members. Big deal, so what, and move on.
It might not have been the wisest choice, but there was no mailice that I can see. Besides, there aren’t that many choices in public lesbians to reference: you got Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge and Anne Heche, and that’s about all you…excuse me, what! I’m keyboarding here, what do you…oh…no, I didn’t know…they can do that? Huh. No shit.
I’d take Dick and Lynne cheney’s “outage” more seriously if Mrs. Cheney hadn’t tried to outright deny her daughter’s homosexuality four years ago:
I guess someone eventually convinced Lynne that denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Er, “outrage.” Yeah, that’s it, that’s the ticket…
rjung, they’re just really good friends, is all…
[hijack]
It amuses me to see someone devoted to Eris talk about cvility.
[/hijack]
Let’s see, Keyes calls Mary a selfish hedonist, and the most the Cheney family can say is “that doesn’t even deserve comment.” (which of course, keep them from having to go on record as actually disagreeing with him, which would be politically devastating even if true) Edwards says she’s gay, and Cheney thanks him. Kerry says she’s gay, and suddenly it’s all a dastardly trick: how dare he reveal something everyone already knows!
If Kerry put them in a tight spot, so be it. Cheney used his daughter as a political prop himself. She’s fair game.
And what really gets me is that Cheney’s use of her was not truly the loving, sincere father: it was the extremely carefully parsed language of someone trying to straddle a political divide without actually stating anything substantive about the subject. On every other social issue, Cheney is a loudmouth: this is good for society, this will disrupt it. On homosexuality, crickets chirp.
Man, what a cheap, tawdry trick:
http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm
Fair warning: I think Lynne Cheney is scum. She helped to politicize public education like never before, all for cheap partisan gain and tons of money. Her scholarship is pathetic, and she’s the usual hypocritical moralizer. But if this incident has shown nothing else, it’s that she’s ashamed of her daughter’s homosexuality.
Dick Gephardt, as Andrew Sullivan points out, talked openly about his gay daughter on the campaign trail. He wasn’t ashamed to have it brought up by third parties. But then, he wasn’t pandering to people that want gay people to submit to special reeducation camps for social reassignment.
Thanks, ArchiveGuy for posting Andrew Sullivan’s take on things - I think he’s dead on. It’s only a political tool if you see something wrong with homosexuality in general. I don’t, so I really can’t see why the Cheneys are “outraged.” It’s interesting, too, that yesterday CNN reported that it was Lynne Cheney who was so upset. I didn’t read today’s story, but today’s headline was changed slightly - now it’s “they Cheneys” who are upset. Kind of says a lot about Lynne, and raises my estimation of the VP.
The other side does have a point, however - Kerry knew that many on the other side do see homosexuality as something immoral or shameful, and so pointing it out would be kind of an “in your face” sort of thing. However, I don’t really proscribe Kerry’s mentioning Mary Cheney as politically motivated on his part - I don’t think he thought it through that far at all. He knew it was mentioned at the VP debates, where Dick Cheney seemed to respond with grace, and I don’t think he thought anyone would take offense. It is a fact, after all, and Mary is a public figure. I think that if he had known that it could cause offense, he wouldn’t have said it. I think Guin’s right on here - he brought it up to remind people that gays aren’t “something other,” they’re people that we’re close to, that we know and care about.
Lastly, I love Andrew Sullivan’s pun:
[quote=Andrew Sullivan, via ArchiveGuy]
She ran gay outreach for Coors, for Pete’s sake.
[quote]
Bolding and capitalization mine. Hee hee!
Heh, now how unpredictable would I be if I was crazy all the time? You gotta change it up now and then to keep everyone on their toes. 
Then, I guess, We shouldn’t talk about Hali-burden at all, then should we? 
Seriously, though, it is a well-known fact out there in the public domain for all to use. It is not like the Kerry Campaign went digging through the Cheyney’s dirty laundry to dig this up! Heck, even Cheyney himself admitted that, personally, he disagrees with the President on his position requiring an Amendment, and such, to define marriage - but he supports the President regardless.
…Oh well, what was I thinking? For a moment, a glimmer of humanity in the Bush Camp, but then, nothing once more. Did I think common sense and personal beliefs would bring some semblence of sanity to this bushed administration? :rolleyes:
Namedropping is the oldest political tool in the book! Come on. It isn’t like Kerry and Mary are best friends 4evar or something.
I agree completely.
I agree. It reminds me of the last presidential cycle, when McCain was asked about what he would do if his daughter were pregnant and wanted an abortion. He said that he’d ‘stand by her decision, whatever that might be.’ While I applaud him for it (I still wish the GOP would field him as a candidate), part of me was appalled by the hypocricy that makes it personal for him, but policy for me. Same with Jeb Bush’s daughter and her drug abuse, etc.
The Cheneys are just trying to have it both ways.
Agree. It has absolutely thrown more light on the Cheneys’ obvious shame over their daughter’s publicly gay lifestyle than on whether Kerry or Edwards engage in cheap politics.*
And Lynne Cheney has the balls to say John Kerry “isn’t not a good man”?!
What kind of moral compass brought you to this assessment, Mary, when you consented to marry one of the biggest draconian thugs of the 21st century?
*The current hue and cry coming from a camp that initiated a whisper campaign during the 2000 Republican primaries about John McCain fathering a black child.
Actually, Mary Cheney did not say that John Kerry “isn’t not” a good man. :smack:
Hey! That’s a double negative, so she’s saying Kerry IS a good man!
When I heard Kerry say this* I was annoyed, as I was by several other things he said during the third debate. It was an unnecessary (but most likely pre-planned) statement (dig) which the Kerry campaign knows highlights fissures within the Republican tent (but which can legitimately if not entirely honestly be portrayed as illuminating the normality and/or non optional nature of homosexuality).
BC04 and its surrogates should have let it hang - do its own damage. People who favor Kerry are more likely to be upset about the comment than those who do not.
My ire evaporated when the whole martyr machine started churning. Mary Cheney has voluntarily entered the spotlight. Her career has in no small part been about being the publicly gay liason to the gay community. This all makes it fair.
Kerry may have been a jerk with that statement but neither Mary Cheney nor her parents are martyrs here.
*When Edwards did it (in cooperation with Cheney) it was in a different context, a different feel.
I like Andrew Sullivan’s take on this point:
bolding mine
I thought the reference sounded a bit awkward and shoe-horned in. But perhaps you can’t always sound smooth in a unscripted debate.
As for it being a cheap shot, it’s no more a cheap shot than to mention that someone is heterosexual or Christian or a republican. I can tell you, if my mom was running for office and got all pissy because their opponent mentioned I was an atheist when asked a question about atheism, I’d be tempted to pop her one. But of course my mom wouldn’t do that, since she is not ashamed of or embarrassed by my atheism. 