Asymmetrical Information

One minor problem with your analysis: Mary Cheney is a public lesbian (so I read) as a spokeswoman for Coors beer to the gay community.

There is NO privacy issue.

Jane,

I disagree. It's not as if Mary Cheney were some recluse, hidden away from the public eye. In fact, not only has Dick Cheney invoked her name and status during the 2000 Debate with Lieberman, but Alan Keyes--that champion of gay rights, made this public announcement:

>>>NEW YORK - Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes has labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner.
The former talk show host who has made two unsuccessful runs for the White House made the comments Monday night in an interview with Sirius OutQ, a satellite radio station that provides programming aimed at gays and lesbians.

After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/

Later, in that SAME article, let's take a look at how Dick Cheney has done with the sexual preference of his own daughter:

>>>In the days before the Republican National Convention, Dick Cheney spoke at some length about the fact that Mary is a lesbian and his view of gay relationships. His tacit support for states' rights on the issue of same-sex marriage and less-than-ringing endorsement of President Bush's push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay unions drew criticism from several conservative groups.

Huh? Are you trying to tell me that Kerry is wrong to mention Mary Cheney's lesbianism, but it's okay for her father to use it as an open political protest against President Bush? And why is Alan Keyes getting a pass for his statements, especially given the fact that his OWN daughter, Maya may have something to say on that matter also? I guess it's tough enough having a loon like Keyes as a dad, but to have your white girlfriend's mom give you the boot? The agony of it all.
http://articleonline.net/blog/archives/000529.shtml
--Cobra

1. it was her parents they were speaking to.
2. "Public Lesbian" ah yes.

Keyes is a jerk.

"Are you trying to tell me that Kerry is wrong to mention Mary Cheney's lesbianism, but it's okay for her father to use it as an open political protest against President Bush?"

Yes, as long as she's OK with it. You may have noticed it is his family.

And I'm not Jane.

Mindles:

I note that the my prior comment noted that Edwards was trying to tag Cheney with a lesbian daughter. It's not very nice, but it was good politics on his part. I agree that Kerry mis-handled it on his part; it didn't seem the least bit organic when he did it. As for decorum - that disappeared a well before this election or the last one.

Also, if Bush came out and said that first time drug users should get long prison sentences, would it be wrong for others to point at his niece's treatment in Florida? What's the significant difference in referencing Mary Cheney in reference to gay rights, etc.? (Not what Kerry was doing, but I think still barred by your rules).

I fear poor Andrew's gone right around the bend. He's purple with rage at Bush for having a gay-marriage policy not much different than Kerry's (Kerry has even said so), yet he doesn't find what Kerry or Edwards is doing the least bit offensive. Amazing what one can justify, isn't it?

Sullivan used to one of my fave bloggers, but I won't be reading him again until about a month after Kerry loses; maybe he'll have calmed down by then...

Kerry and Edwards are getting very creepy, late in this campaign. The people around them seem very creepy as well. For creeps, of course, anything goes.

Predictably, I guess, I disagree. Not only has Mary Cheney not made a secret of her sexual orientation, she has used it as the basis of her career.

Kerry said nothing disrespectful or demeaning, and I find the outrage unjustified.

1. I agree, bad form to drag personal issues into the debate, even worse to drag family members' personal issues into the debate.

2. I don't understand how homosexuality has much of anything to do with the presidential election - that amendment is dead on arrival, zero chance of success. however, I do know a few people whose support of bush is based on these type of 'family values' issues.... aren't there more relevant issues?

Interestingly, the piece Sullivan wrote back in June 2001 explaining how pleased he was that Michelangelo Signorile didn't shrink from mentioning his life can no longer be found on his site. I went looking for it because I seemed to recall Sullivan insisting that, although he wasn't ashamed of soliciting unprotected sex on the Internet, he still didn't consider it any of the public's business.

Unless Mary Cheney gave John Kerry permission to discuss on national TV the most personal and intimate details of her life, Kerry had no business doing so. It's not a question of whether Mary has made a secret of the topic or not. You just don't do such things in polite company. Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with the issue (although it might have everything to do with Kerry's motivation).

Kerry put Mary in the position of either having to publicly disagree with Kerry or appear to agree with him by keeping silent. She can either discuss publicly a topic she would prefer not to discuss (at least not in the forum of a press conference) or appear disloyal to her father. Fun choice. It was totally despicable for Kerry to put her in such a position.

Kerry claims he was just trying to put a human face on the issue. He could have done that by mentioning the name of one of his gay friends -- assuming any of them would give him permission to use their name.

Republicans will twist anything to support Bush/Cheney, won't they? The most personal details of Mary Cheney's life?? Get real. There was nothing said other than in direct response to a question concerning the nature of homosexuality that Mary Cheney, like most other homosexuals, would say that their sexual orientation is part of who they are. Given that she's been out for years there is no intimate detail spoken of there.

Yes, Mindles, Keyes IS a jerk. But please note the complete snivelling intellectual and moral cowardice of EVERY Republican posting here concerning the real issue about the Keyes comments. He's YOUR jerk. Kerry is condemned for what is a relatively innocuous statement while not one Republican, INCLUDING THE CHENEYS, says anything concerning Keyes. If there was any real outrage on their part as opposed to political playacting and pandering there'd be some condemnation of Keyes by the outraged parents but there isn't one word.

Every single Republican posting here condemning Kerry for this, including yours, is nothing but BS and lies, Mindles.

Ok. I've left this message at several sites. For those Kerry supporters too thick-headed to get it, I guess I have to repeat myself. (and for the record, I support gay marriage, I won't vote for Bush because his support for the FMA was a bridge too far for me--I can't in good conscience support gay-baiting, I'm staying at home b/c the Democrats aren't any better because they aren't serious about the WOT.)

Forget about homosexuality. YOU DON'T USE THE CHILD OR YOUR OPPONENT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, PERIOD! I don't care what Kerry's motives were (To keep anti-gay bigots at home so they won't vote for Bush, appealing for anti-gay votes, reassuring socially blacks and Hispanics that Democrats aren't really serious about gay rights, etc.)

Kerry could've named any of the hundreds of millions of gay people in the world to answer the question (or better yet, why mention anyone by name?) but he chose Mary Cheney. Why? It was dirty pool. It was fucking tacky!

Screaming about the GOP being homophobic or that the Cheney's are hypocrites doesn't change that fact. It was not "fair game"!

And if you don't believe me, what if Bush had gratuitously brought up one of the Kerry daughter's to answer a question? I'm sure you Kerry supporters would've been perfectly ok with that right?

Face it, your campaign screwed up. (This was planned since at least the Cheney-Edwards debate.) Kerry should just apologize and move one. The polls agree with me on this. Just let it go. I know both sides can't ever admit their wrong, but you guys are wrong on this one. No, it's not the huge outrage conservatives are making it, but it was classless. Just let it go folks.

During the VP debate, Dick Cheney *praised* John Edwards for mentioning that Cheney's daughter is gay. Now Cheney is feigning outrage.

Here's Fafblog:

Friday, October 15, 2004
The Final And Ultimate Solution To The National Crisis Of Dick Cheney's Gay Daughter

The Medium Lobster was apalled, just like the rest of perpetually-outraged America, to see John Kerry mention that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter Wednesday night. For there is no greater offense one can make to an openly gay person than to make note of their gayness.

Dick and Lynne Cheney are right to be outraged, as are sincere and heartfelt gay rights' advocates Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus. And this outrage comes not because they feel that homosexuality is shameful or icky or full of cooties. It is because they know that the greatest shame one can bring to a lesbian is to note their existence.

Before John Kerry's terrible words, Mary Cheney only had to be gay to her family, her friends, the Coors Corporation, the staff of Bush/Cheney Re-Elect, and the gay community at large to whom she acted as a liason. But John Kerry made her gay to the entire world, effectively making her more gay than ever before.

There is an obvious solution here - but only part of it involves the trial of John Kerry as a thought criminal. Good solutions are proactive, not reactive, and the problem with Mary Cheney was not merely that her admitted sexuality could be mentioned on national television. It was that she could be seen at all, allowing anyone who looked at her to realize she existed - and possibly realize she was gay.

Introducing: The Lesburka.This is not merely Mary's dilemma. This is the dilemma of millions of open lesbians across America: how to utterly conceal their existence from view. The solution must be simple, yet effective. It must wall all lesbians up in utter darkness, away from all sight. Like a closet, if you will.

Fortunately, associates of the Medium Lobster have already prepared such a solution in a comfortable, full-body garment able to easily bury any trace of a lesbian's sexuality beneath yards of cloth. They call it the Lesburka, and the Medium Lobster is confident that its use on Mary Cheney and lesbians across the country will restore the pride of Dick and Lynne in a heartbeat.

Nice Stowbridge. But it doesn't negate my point. It's not about homosexuality, it's about talking about the other side's kids to make a political point. Until I see a Kerry supporter address this, my point still stands. You can whine all you want about the GOP gay-baiting, homosexuality isn't a choice, etc., it doesn't address what I said.

Does anyone else think that a lot of the noise has been faux rage designed to divert media attention from W's very public untruth?

If so, then it's a masterstroke of tactics.

Let's compare, let's say Dixiecrat X is running for president and wants to make miscegnegation illegal by means of a constitutional ammendment, his vp candidate's daughter is living with a black man. Is it dirty pool to bring that up in a debate?

Michael - If Bush were running on a platform that included making homosexual acts illegal (which he is not), you might have a point. Most people would think the comment about his VP's daughter was tough but fair. That's not what happened.

Instead, try this for analogy: Candidate Schmoe says, "My health plan will pay for elective abortions. My opponent's plan does not. If you ask my opponent's unmarried daughter, she'd tell you she'd rather have a plan the covers elective abortions." This implies that the daughter agrees with Schmoe, and disagrees with her father, on this point. It also implies that the daughter either has or might in the future elect to have an abortion.

Unless the girl in question is on the record as supporting taxpayer funding of elective abortions, it would be grossly unfair to cite her as an authority to impeach her father. Candidate Schmoe is assuming the right to speak for his opponent's daughter. He is putting her in the position of needing to discuss a topic she may not wish to discuss in public. He's also causing a national TV audience to speculate about her sex life and to wonder if she's had an abortion. Very uncool.

Bottom line, the question of whether Kerry's remark was out of bounds is a matter of taste. According to the polls, most Americans, including many of Kerry's supporters, think Kerry was wrong.

"Every single Republican posting here condemning Kerry for this, including yours, is nothing but BS and lies, Mindles."

Notice Jim's special meaningless-critique definition of 'BS and lies' means here "not criticizing everyone else I say is guilty of this."

I never promised full idiot coverage, but at least now I've got you on the record.

we shouldn't care if the president gets head from a girl in the oval office any more than we should care that the vp's daughter gets head from a girl in the privacy of her own home.

they're both equally irrelevant and are the tools of mean-spirited partisan hacks.

mean people suck

"This implies that the daughter agrees with Schmoe, and disagrees with her father, on this point."

You seem to be implying that Mary Cheney _supports_ the FMA?????? That would be strange, and news of no small order.

And really no one thinks the that W's untruth regarding OBL is worthy of more consideration of the non-issue about whether MC is a lesbian?

I don't buy it. If the topic of homosexuality in a public debate necessarily led to the discussion of the Vice President's daughter then why did the discussion of the top 1% of income earners never turn to Kerry's wife?

Michael - No, I did not imply that Mary Cheney has taken any position on any issue. Kerry implied that she agreed with him and NOT with her father's boss. The specfic point of disagreement was whether homosexuality is a "choice" or not. Bush said he didn't know. Kerry cited mary as someone who agreed with Kerry that it is not a choice.

"Kerry implied that she agreed with him and NOT with her father's boss"

And I'm inclined to let her set the record straight instead of her parents. Has she made any comments? Or is everybody too offended on her behalf to ask her?

First, Kerry didnt bring gay marriage into the debate. Bush did, with his silly homophobic amendment, and the moderator chose to ask the question, do gay people choose to be gay? Cheneys daughter is the most known gay person involved in either campaign, Cheney less than a week previous to this debate thanked Edwards for his kind words about his gay daughter, so there should be no contriversy.

Since when is a 35 year old woman a child? Did Kerry make an issue of Bushs relations prescription drug forgery attempts, or the multiple underage drinking offenses? That would be out of bounds imo. But an openly gay 35 year old woman who is a representive for a huge company as a liasson to the gay community, and whos also part of the Bush campaign is entirely in the parameters of good taste. The real question is how can Mary Cheney work for a scumbag like Pete Coors, whos only interest in the gay community is how many dollars he can get them to spend to purchase his watered down, ant urine.

I give up. I've decided liberals have just gone insane. Anything to bash Bush. Lovely.

I was going to add something but somebody used up all the commas.

I don't get it.

Someone who has made a career of campaigning for gay rights, currently working to re-elect someone who made great theatre of attempting to pass legislation forbiding gay marriage, is supposed to be an off-limits topic?

And the last little update about the "N" word seems to point out that this is all about shame. "Keep it in the family". At least, keep it in the family until it can be used against a competitor, then exploit it for all you can.

Mindles,

Forgive me for calling you Jane. My questions to you are these..is it wrong to bring up family EVER, in a Presidential debate, knowing the frequency that it actually happens?
And, do you think homosexuality is a "choice?"

--Cobra

1. Mindles's analogy to Chris Rock is not only not on all fours with the Kerry-Mary situation, it's not on one. The analogous situation would be noting that Rock is, in fact, black. Maybe Republicans worry about saying something like that in public, but I don't think many Democrats do. Worth noting, though, that (absent other qualifiers, like friendship) if any white guy gets away with doing that routine, it'll be a Democrat. As with gay rights, we've built up at least a little credibility on civil rights for African Americans.

2. Kerry shouldn't have done it, but only b/c he remains at best a simulacra of a human being. His motivations for tagging their VP with a gay daughter were either (a) to depress the Pub vote, or (b) to prevent Pub sotto voce appeals to homophobia. I think it was (a). It wasn't nice, but no one who gets to that level is nice. He shouldn't have done it b/c he doesn't have the skills to do something that nakedly political and still seem like a decent guy.

3. I was in DC when the Clintons came to town (and was nominally a Pub, interestingly enough), and I remember lots and lots of Pub public discussion about the hypocrisy of being against school choice but sending Chelsea (then 12 or 13) to a private school. But everyone remembers how the decency wing of the Republican party sprang into action then - NOT!

4. Kerry shouldn't let this drag on much longer. I guarantee that there were plenty of "uncomfortable reactions" from the elder Cheneys when Mary came out, and she must have told them to friends. If the Pubs keep pushing this story line and the media keeps picking it up, the Dems better have some far off (really far off) group start putting the media in touch with all the friends of Mary who can tell people of the charming reactions of her parents as she came out. (FWIW: Dem parents could/would have reacted badly in that time period, also). If they're going to act like offended parents, remind the world of exactly the sort of parents the Cheneys were.

I think bringing up the opposing candidate's family is a minefield and best avoided.

Regardless of orientation everyone chooses whether to act on their sexual proclivities, but no, I don't believe the orientation is a personal choice.

I look forward to the world in which this would have been a non-issue (in fact, as I've said before, one where the candidate says whom you marry is none of the State's business period) but recognize we're not in it.

SomeCallMeTim--

There's nothing wrong with Democrats, commentators, etc. talking about the hypocrisy of Cheney working for an administration that has endorsed the FMA. The point is, Kerry and Edwards themselves brought this up. If some Democratic spinmeister wants to go on Tim Russert or wherever and bring up Mary Cheney, no problem. This was in a widely watched debate. The context was different. And the "Pubs" as you call them did rightly question the hypocrisy of the Clintons. But George Bush41 and Bob Dole never brought it up in a debate---that's the difference. It would've been disgusting for either of them to raise it, no matter how valid the charge of hypocrisy.

Same thing here...that's what I've been trying to get through to Kerry supporters---it was a despicable tactic no matter how valid the point Kerry was making. As Mindles said, it shouldn't change votes, but it was rude. If I was a Kerry supporter, I'd still vote for Kerry, but I'd be embarrassed by this incident.

I have read many post referring to Dick Cheney's thanking John Edwards for his kind words. This has largely been brough up my Kerry/Edwards supporters suggesting that Cheney is a hypocrite for complaining now. Perhaps these posters are not familiar with the "Thank you" that really means "Fuck you" technique that is applied by polite people. Anyone familiar with the technique who saw Cheney's reaction knows that was what Cheney was really saying. After all, it is one thing to say "Fuck you" in a private conversation on the Senate floor and quite another to say it on national television. I hope this clears things up for all those who cannot "read between the lines",if you will, when someone says "Thank you" in response to a rude comment in a public forum.

Jim English
Chicago

If children are fair game, then why does the meida let John Edwards get away with not telling them which elite, all white private school his children attend inside DC.

Edwards and Kerry have both taken the give the NEA want ever it wants position while their children attend(ed) virtually all white private schools with non-union teachers and a hard academic course of study. Isn't that as hypocritical of them as the Democrats accuse the Cheney's of being.

Jim English I agree with your point on what Cheney intended with his "Thank You". But the more I think about Kerrys comments, the more I agree with them. Kerry intended his comments on Mary Cheney to be divisive to reps, but Bush is proposing an ammendment to the Constitution he knows cant pass to appeal to evangelicals. Bush wants to have both sides of the issue, and does because of Cheneys split from him on this issue. I guarentee most of the gay community knew Mary Cheneys was gay prior to the debate, but I dont think most evangelicals knew she was gay. Imo Bush brought this issue into his campaign with high Mach political thought, and I think the dems did the same with Mary Cheney, but since it was in response to a Bush move I dont think its wrong.

Billy Carter and Roger Clinton were about the same age or older than Mary Cheney, and they were certainly always fair game for reps.

The truth shall set you free...Unless you are a hypocrite.

Jim English - Thank you, oh thank you for saying what I've been thinking since the Veep debate! Miss Manners maintains that the best way to fend off unwanted attention to one's personal life is to thank the attender as frostily as possible. When the person at the park comments, "Your baby's cold - you should put a hat on her," you answer, coldly, "Thank you so much for your concern," and move on. That's what Mr. Cheney did.

Mary Cheney can be as "openly" or "publicly gay" (that's about as silly a term as "professional woman") as she wants - it's her business. Her parents can choose to mention her being gay at their discretion, because the assumption is that she's in on it and has given them permission to do so. We can't make the same assumption about a stranger, and particularly an opponent of her dad's, and particularly in a nationally televised forum. (As far as I know, she didn't come out on national TV like Ellen deGeneres, did she? That's an honest question. I really don't know. But I only just barely remembered that she was gay when this whole thing started.)

I agree that this hooraw has diddly to do with gay marriage. I'm ticked because of the sheer bad manners of it. But for those who still believe it's all about gay marriage and homophobia (hi again, Begbee), it's just silly to say that Bush made Mary Cheney's personal life "fair game" by trying for an impossible Constitutional amendment. The question of Ms. Heinz Kerry's incredible net worth isn't entering the debate unless Kerry himself brings it up, which I've heard him do twice; Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney give her a pass.

Begbee, you mentioned Billy Carter and Roger Clinton. I don't remember a lot about either one - they predate my interest in politics. But was either of them co-opted by his brother's political opponent? (I'm guessing no, since in both cases there were credible allegations of wrongdoing, so no opponent would touch 'em.) That's the background for Mrs. Cheney's "cheap and tawdry political trick" comment.

Jesus, again I have to keep saying this. Begbee, cite one time George Bush 41 or Bob Dole brought up Roger Clinton at a debate. In fact, bring up anytime a Republican politician mentioned Roger Clinton or Billy Carter, then you'd have a valid point. Did conservative commentators or the press in general talk about them? Yes, but not the candidates...that's the difference.

Mindles,

I notice that you don't address my main contention, that the fact that NOT ONE Republican has said anything negative about Keyes' attack on Mary Cheney as opposed to the faux rage at Kerry mildly mentioning her reveals all of this indignation for what it is. You call him a jerk but don't say that he's wrong. Not one other conservative posting here on the issue even mildly castigates him for it or admits that there's anything wrong with the Republicans giving him a pass on it.

That's because your main contention is a ridiculous strawman. The idea that a blogger has to go around guaging depth of outrage in a fully balanced manner is just a silly way to illogically challenge an argument and control his/her blogging time.

For example - I bet you don't criticize Michael Moore and Molly Ivins enough...huh? How come all of your fellow trolls aren't declaiming you doing this? I demand to know where the outrage is!

Jim's question is also silly for another reason.

Keyes did not bring up Mary Cheney. He stated his opinion that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." He was then asked by the interviewer if that definition applied to Mary Cheney, and replied that of course it would have to.

So, if that exchange requires condemnation because Mary Cheney's sexuality was brought into it, Keyes is the wrong target.

Another reason you aren't hearing much condemnation of Keyes is because he's not in the national spotlight. I know he's running for Senator of some state (Illinois?) but since I vote in Virginia, I haven't followed his race. I didn't even know of his comments until I read them here. If those are actually his words, they are awful and outrageous, but they will never get the press of a presidential candidates comments during a public debate.

As for Kerry and Edwards bringing up Mary Cheney, I have to agree with Huck who says it was dirty politics to mention family members of the opposition that way. If Dick Cheney is mentioning Mary in his campaign, then presumably he has her permission to do that. Kerry does not have that permission. And since she is not running for any elected office, her personal life is not "fair game", as Kerry's campaign says.

The only person with the full right to be indignant is Mary Cheney herself, what, if anything, has she said?

"I was in DC when the Clintons came to town (and was nominally a Pub, interestingly enough), and I remember lots and lots of Pub public discussion about the hypocrisy of being against school choice but sending Chelsea (then 12 or 13) to a private school."

This criticism concerned an actual action of the Clintons, which is rather at odds with what they want to be possible for families without 6 figure incomes. Neither conservative Republican ideology nor conservative Christianity (if the Cheneys are such) requires parents to cut off contact with an adult child of whose lifestyle they disapprove...

Wow. Lots more bigots than I expected to find here. The Cheneys were pissed because Kerry and Edwards have openly exposed the Cheney family's hypocrisy. Heterosexuals bring up sexual orientation all the time. Without realizing it. They're very "in your face" about it. Unfortunately, it seems that -- even someplace where one would expect reason to dictate otherwise -- homosexuals aren't to be afforded the same courtesy.

Jaime, Billy Carter caused Jimmy Carter quite a few problems during Carters term. Mostly because of drinking issues and promotion of his own brew, Billy Beer. Roger Clinton was attacked by reps for everything from alleged post inaugeral(sp) drug sales to allegations he took payment for Presidential pardons. I dont know what you mean by politically co-opted, Kerry never spoke to if Ms Cheney supported her parties ammendment to the Constitution, shes been predictably silent on the issue. And despite her role in the campaign, for some reason the media has been hands off on her opposition or support for that ammendment.

Huck I never limited my comments to the debates. But when a party is pursueing an ammendment to the freaking Consititution as a wedge issue, even when that ammendment has no chance of passing, its that party that has politicized the issue, and its that party thats playing "dirty". Kerry threw some dung on the rep evangelical red meat, and never insulted or exposed anything personal about Mary Cheney. In fact, I think its very relevant that Cheney will sell out his own daughter for party politics.

jfbiii:

Please, please... don't impute to others thoughts and emotions you have no idea about. I'm a Rep and a conservative, and even so, I don't think I have the right to declare what the Cheneys think and feel about their daughter's sexual orientation. The likelihood that you have some special knowledge of what goes on in their heads and hearts seems pretty slim to me.

Your comment reminds me of something I read on Andrew Sullivan, about heterosexuals wearing their orientation on their sleeves. I can see how he would say that, given his examples (the woman he'd been riding around with all day "had been talking all day about your husband, your kids," etc., etc. - nowhere near a direct quote but that's the idea). But my mentioning that I have a husband is not the same as my saying, "and I'm only attracted to men, by the way." And it's certainly not the same thing as somebody else speculating on why I'm only attracted to men.

When the word "bigot" is thrown around, I confess I make an automatic judgment about the person using the word. Kerry was right about one thing, sort of: labels do tend to interfere with the exchange of ideas. (OK, all he said was "labels don't fit," so I guess now I'm the one imputing a thought to someone I don't know.) The label "bigot," like the labels "racist," "homophobe," and "woman-hater," pretty well stops things in their tracks. Once you've used it, why not just bow out of the debate altogether? After all, your work here is done.

Unless Mary Cheney gave John Kerry permission to discuss on national TV the most personal and intimate details of her life, Kerry had no business doing so. It's not a question of whether Mary has made a secret of the topic or not. You just don't do such things in polite company....Kerry put Mary in the position of either having to publicly disagree with Kerry or appear to agree with him by keeping silent. She can either discuss publicly a topic she would prefer not to discuss (at least not in the forum of a press conference) or appear disloyal to her father. Fun choice. It was totally despicable for Kerry to put her in such a position.

Nonesense, Mary was not only head of Gay & Lesbian Outreach for the Coors Company (you can argue that this was just a job and should not be used to read anything into her personal life) but she was also head of a gay rights group that advocated removing anti-gay bias from the GOP platform. Indeed Mary was a 'public lesbian' in the same way a Bishop is a 'public Catholic'. No doubt the reason Mary was able to get such high profile positions in gay activisim is due to her father's high profile. This is a double edged sword, if you want to be a public figure then you have to accept being a public figure. No one made Mary get involved with lobbying and no one told her to trade on her father's name but she did. There's nothing wrong with that but there's also nothing wrong with bringing it up.

Forget about homosexuality. YOU DON'T USE THE CHILD OR YOUR OPPONENT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, PERIOD! I don't care what Kerry's motives were ...Kerry could've named any of the hundreds of millions of gay people in the world to answer the question (or better yet, why mention anyone by name?) but he chose Mary Cheney. Why? It was dirty pool. It was fucking tacky!

Because it nicely demonstrates the hyprocrisy of the Republican ticket. They cater to gay bashers yet appear to do so only for political gain. If this was 1940 and some candidate was appealing to Nazi supporters, I'd happily point it out if he had a Jewish son-in-law and was supportive of him.

And if you don't believe me, what if Bush had gratuitously brought up one of the Kerry daughter's to answer a question? I'm sure you Kerry supporters would've been perfectly ok with that right?

I'm trying to imagine how this would be done. Suppose one of Kerry's daughters was a devout Catholic who was a nun but was raped and conceived a child...suppose she had the child rather than have an abortion. I could see Bush fairly saying something like:

Bush: Innocent Human life is entitled to respect no matter what the circumstances. Your own daughter, Mr. Kerry, deserves great praise for her personal devotion to this precept. I do think we can all learn something from her.

Assuming this was not some private secret of the Kerry family, assuming that Kerry's daughter had been lead a group that advocated banning abortion even in cases of rape and used her personal story as an illustration I would think it is perfectly fair for Bush to use her as an illustration.

Unless the girl in question is on the record as supporting taxpayer funding of elective abortions, it would be grossly unfair to cite her as an authority to impeach her father. Candidate Schmoe is assuming the right to speak for his opponent's daughter.

I suggest you do a Ggle-search on 'Mary Cheney gay rights' and see what comes up. I don't know if she ever went on record against the FMA but the question was about whether homosexuality should be viewed as a choice or not. A rather fundamental question in the politics of this question because 'choicers' argue that recognigtion should not be given to a trait that is not immutable like race or gender.

I don't buy it. If the topic of homosexuality in a public debate necessarily led to the discussion of the Vice President's daughter then why did the discussion of the top 1% of income earners never turn to Kerry's wife?

So what if it did? Kerry could have said fairly 'my wife and I enjoyed a tax cut much larger than almost any of you in this audience because of President Bush. If you don't like that, don't blame me or my wife, blame Bush'!

This criticism concerned an actual action of the Clintons, which is rather at odds with what they want to be possible for families without 6 figure incomes.

You're serious right? Really? hahahaha. I mean, the Bush's have a multi-million dollar ranch. Do they want to give tax money to all those people without the means to buy a multi-million dollar ranch of their own? How about their cars? Do the Bush's, Cheney's, Reagans, Gingrichs and so on drive cars that maybe a person making $12K a year couldn't afford? Do they advocate giving those people money to buy cars of equal status?

It's always amusing when right wingers resort to class warfare!

What is peculiar is that Jane seems to think that Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney was completely gratuitious. It was not. It was in direct response to a question from the moderater regarding whether homosexuality is genetic or a mere lifestyle choice.

Bush answered the question by saying he did not know.

Kerry answered by saying, hey, look at Mary Cheney, a public lesbian, from a solid republican family, you think she CHOSE to be a lesbian, give me fucking break, go ask her yourself if you really want to know.

I liked Kerrys answer.

If Dick Chaney didn’t want his daughter brought into the discussion then he should not have mentioned her on August 24th.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

With that statement the issue of his daughters privacy as it relates to her homosexuality went right out the window. Cheney made the decision to drag his daughter’s sexual orientation and he did it for political reasons, to color BC04 as “tolerant” of the homosexual lifestyle despite the fact that supper the anti-gay marriage amendment. All of you who are trying to make it seem as if Cheney never used his daughter homosexuality for political reasons are in denial. In fact he was the one who brought it up first in the debate. Edwards was simply responding to what Cheney said. This artificial outrage doesn’t pass the laugh test

how often do you discuss other people's sexual orientation on highly formal occasions in front of millions of people?

All the friggin' time, if they're straight. Straight people never hesitate to mention others' opposite-sex spouses, even on highly formal occasions. But make a single reference to someone's homosexuality, and you're "invading their privacy." Even a single mention of my (sadly non-existent) boyfriend at work would be flaunting my sexuality, but everyone else can discuss their sex partners to their heart's content.

Huck, I sympathize with you. People like Anton just don't get it--they respond with irrelevant comments, because they just don't get the point--it's rude and unprofessional to mention ANYTHING personal about your opponent's children during a campaign. Whatever point you are trying to make.

Hey there, Begbee - nice to hear from you. What I meant by "politically co-opted" was that Kerry's comment that Ms. Cheney would say she was just "being herself" implicitly enlisted her in his side of the debate against her dad and her dad's boss. While she may indeed agree that homosexuality is inborn or comes about so early that there's no choice involved, the fact that she's working on her father's campaign certainly seems on the face of things to imply that she's supporting him at the moment, not his opponent.

So my question was whether Ford or Bush or Dole or their Veeps/Veep candidates tried the same gambit with Billy Carter or Roger Clinton, and I answered my own question by saying that, because of the allegations made against those two men, their brothers' opponents were unlikely to want to create the appearance of their being on the same side. (What a convoluted sentence.) Ms. Cheney, obviously, hasn't been indicated in any kind of wrongdoing, so the parallel isn't exact.

Which leads me to the same conclusion: I can't think of a case in which a Rep figuratively tried to split up a Dem opponent's family over a campaign issue.

Jaime, when has there ever been a dem presidential family so far apart on an issue that the President thinks is large enough to ammend the Consititution? If theres division in the Cheney family its because Dick chose party politics over his daughter.

"For example - I bet you don't criticize Michael Moore and Molly Ivins enough...huh? How come all of your fellow trolls aren't declaiming you doing this? I demand to know where the outrage is!

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" at October 18, 2004 05:51 AM"

I'm outraged!!! Was that enough exclamation points? Hey, I don't live under a bridge!!!

"For example - I bet you don't criticize Michael Moore and Molly Ivins enough...huh? How come all of your fellow trolls aren't declaiming you doing this? I demand to know where the outrage is!

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" at October 18, 2004 05:51 AM"

I'm outraged!!! Was that enough exclamationpoints? Hey, I don't live under a bridge!!!

So, Mindles, when did you quit beating your wife?

(aside, did you take the pictures with digital or 35MM?)

Rex,

And you just don't "get it" Cheney brought his daughter up first, not KE04. If he didn’t think that his daughter deserved to be an issue in the public discussion then he should have not used the fact that she is a lesbian to score cheap political points in the first place.

Had KE04 brought it up out of thin air you might have a point, they didn't, Chaney made his daughter an issue and KE04 simply followed Cheney's lead. You want to blame someone? Blame Chaney for dragging his own daughter through the political mud machine.

Huck sez:

"the hypocrisy of Cheney working for an administration that has endorsed the FMA"

Maybe it isn't hypocrisy. Maybe she just thinks that defeating the FMA is a little less urgent than avoiding being stoned to death by fanatical Muslims.

Ken sez:

"Bush answered the question by saying he did not know."
Which just happens to be the only honest, defensible answer for anyone who doesn't have a Ph.D. in psychology or neuroscience.

No "outrage" over Keyes's comments about Mary Cheney was ever voiced by the Cheyneys. Their "outrage," like that of many of people here who have expressed it, seems to be selectively motivated by politics rather than decency.

Jamie, if you felt tarred by the "bigot" brush, that's on you. I read that, correctly or not, as an indicator that your objection to Kerry's action here is political rather than ethical. If you meant to (or did) similarly denounce Keyes' statements about the "selfish hedonism" of Mary Cheney or the threat of incest that results from allowing same-sex marriage -- something Keyes has never fretted about is our pro-adoption culture; see what I mean about selective outrage as an indicator of bigotry? -- then I apologize for missing it.

But my mentioning that I have a husband is not the same as my saying, "and I'm only attracted to men, by the way."

No, it's much more forward than I ever am. In response to the girlfriend/wife question, if I am in a safe situation (do you ever worry about when it is safe to mention your boyfriend/husband?) I and many others may say "no, I'm gay" if "no, but I have a boyfriend" is not currently applicable. To many people, and it seems to me that you may be one of them, that's dropping the G(ay)-bomb. Dropping the H(etero)-bomb is a concept that doesn't exist; it's background noise, nobody cares, and it's always safe except in situations so improbable that most people never encounter them.

And it's certainly not the same thing as somebody else speculating on why I'm only attracted to men.

Do let's cut the dreck, Mindles. The Bush campaign has obviously been trying to have it both ways: hinting to their Christian Right supporters that they regard homosexuals as immoral, while not ever quite saying it explicitly lest they be exposed as bigots and/or hypocrites. (Typical example: Bush's support of the FMA on the campaign trail, without ever mentioning -- himself -- that the version he supports would also prevent gay couples in any state from being allowed to form secular civil unions.) Talk about creepy... Kerry proposed to force them to stop -- er -- flip-flopping on the issue. Good for him, although I wish he'd cemented it by stating explicitly that Mary has openly declared herself to be a lesbian and that neither she nor he sees anything immoral about it.

As for the Cheneys' remarkable silence on Alan Keyes' open and vicious attacks on their "selfish hedonist" of a daughter... well, earlier comments hve already pointed that out. At any rate, we've all been freshly reminded of how you picked up your nom de plume.

Postscript: Given Mindles' willingness to dump on Andrew Sullivan at the start of this exchange, I think it's extremely appropriate to quote his latest comment on the subject:

"Kerry wasn't scoring a direct political point against Bush. He was responding to an open-ended question about whether being gay is a choice. Now that has consequences, of course. But if you live in a world where mentioning someone's lesbianism is no big deal (and Kerry does), I can see why he wouldn't see it that way. And that's why almost no gay people have complained about this. Very few had any reaction to the comment. I didn't even notice it till the emails started coming in - all from straight people. That's because I live in a world where homosexuality is a non-issue. But many others - especially Republican parents - still do. And their worst nightmare, sadly, is a gay child. That's why they leaped to Cheney's defense."

Yes indeed. If Mr. Dreck thinks that it was "creepy" for Kerry to bring this up, the only possible reason can be that he thinks that Kerry was -- gasp! trying to unfairly turn votes away from his opponent by appealing to homophobia. Now, what other candidate this year this year has been doing that? Let me think...

Comments are Closed.