I'm with the Republicans (sort of) on the Mary Cheney business.
We all know that the only reason Kerry mentioned her at all is that it might cost Bush with his evangelical base.
Yes, Mary Cheney is publicly homosexual, yes she is the campaign manager of Dick Cheney, so she is not an off-limit topic for discussion. Yes, Kerry was not criticizing her at all, but rather the contray. Nevertheless, its difficult not to feel uncomfortable with this tactic - embraced by both Kerry and Edwards - of bringing her up repeatedly in the hopes of lowering the evangelical turnout. It is cheap.
Andrew Sullivan's argument to the contrary is worth reading.
Update: Is it possible to get cable without Fox News? As long as its accessible, I turn to it to see what the conservative view on current events is. Why oh why do I do it - every time I come away irritated.
Today was no different - James Dobson came on and argued, incredibly, that it was bad for Kerry to "out" (of course Cheney had spoken about Mary Cheney's homosexuality many times before so it was not outing) her because it is "embarassing." I still maintain that this was not a good move on Kerry's part - but the reactions I saw only confirm Andrew Sullivan's point that almost all of the "outrage" over this seems to be based on the idea that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of.
posted by alex @ 3:29 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
im with sullivan on this one.
honestly, most of what is said during the debate constitutes one 'cheap trick' or another aimed at target audiences.
generally, im the first to say leave politicians kids out of it, but as you pointed out mary is high up in the campaign.
theres a reason social conservatives are the most worked up over this - its this archaic notion of categorizing mentions of a homosexual lifestyle as dirty laundry that shouldnt be aired on national television.
say the issue was childcare and kerry brought up the fact cheney has a grandchild with a working mother - would anyone be up in arms then?
ok, i read your comment only after i wrote my "update" and now i see they are much the same thing.
still. whether mentioning her is OK or not, lets ask the question WHY he mentioned her.
and you know the right answer to that is the most cynical one.
yes, the cynical answer is obviously the best. we will revisit the second stanza (haha) of my comment - what isnt a cheap trick during a campaign? its all a bunch of bloody sophistry.
Post a Comment
<< Home