she dedicated it to her daughters, too.
October 15, 2004 8:41 AM   Subscribe

(because, Señor Haughey, your wish is my command)
Lynne Cheney may have issues with her daughter's lesbianism being used as a debate point, but she obviously has no problem using it as a plot point. Read excerpts from her steamy 1981 novel Sisters, a story of love between American frontier women. You may recall that whitehouse.org has had trouble with Ms. Cheney before.
posted by whatnot (73 comments total)

 
nice. she should co-write something with bill o'reilly.
posted by ae4rv at 8:53 AM on October 15, 2004


EYAAAGH!

ick! ick! ick!
posted by scarabic at 8:57 AM on October 15, 2004


Wow, talk about cheap and tawdry! Four stars! Cognitive dissonance is soooo sexy.
posted by planetkyoto at 9:16 AM on October 15, 2004


...and of course Mrs. Cheney seemed to have no problem with fellow wingnut Alan Keyes actually trashing her daughter for her sexual orientation.
posted by soyjoy at 9:19 AM on October 15, 2004


Yeah, the "outrage" at anyone outside their camp even mentioning the word lesbian is pretty funny actually.

Its okay for the president to try and amend our constitution specifically to deny marriage benefits to same sex couples but its an affront to deceny to mention that Cheney's got a lesbian daughter?

I love it, the irony is just so thick and delicious.

And then there's the never ending news of the tabloid tarts getting married while drunk, on a whim or because they were bored. They do everything possible to hold up the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
posted by fenriq at 9:40 AM on October 15, 2004


ye olde girle on girle action
posted by milovoo at 9:49 AM on October 15, 2004


er, did anyone not know before Wednesday that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian? It's not like it wasn't a subject during the GOP convention, and certainly in terms a great deal less respectful than were used by Kerry (or by Edwards, for that matter).

FWIW my brother (who is gay) didn't see anything wrong with mentioning it. Then again he's always been critical of the GOP's "back of the bus" treatment of even the Log Cabin Republicans.
posted by clevershark at 9:56 AM on October 15, 2004


Meanwhile, Cheney himself thanked Edwards for his kind words about Mary during the VP Debate. This is such a crock of shit, completely aimed at firing up the base (something they still shouldn't need to be doing at this late date). Lynn Cheney is ashamed of her daughter, and they both use her for political gain, one to get the base fired up, and the other to signal that he's not so conservative after all. This selective outrage is shameful.
posted by amberglow at 10:00 AM on October 15, 2004


the Advocate has a great piece on this So you have to figure Lynne Cheney’s lashing out at Kerry comes from one of two guilty places—one sad, the other ugly. Despite what her educated mind tells her, does Lynne, like so many of her generation, feel that she and Dick failed somehow, and that’s why Mary likes girls? Does she secretly fear that she, Lynne, carried the sapphic DNA? 

Or are the guilt and anger fresher than that? Is it that Lynne Cheney herself was outed last night—as a mother who’s spent a long career putting her daughter second to her own political advancement? 

Whatever the ingredients, Lynne was angry last night because she was ashamed. Unlike her husband, Lynne missed the chance to stand up openly for her child. The nation knows it. 

posted by amberglow at 10:05 AM on October 15, 2004


"If my own daughter were a homosexual or lesbian, I would love my daughter, but I would tell her she was in sin," Keyes said.

HA HA HA
posted by xmutex at 10:05 AM on October 15, 2004


You can hear excerpts from this fine piece of literature as read by Joann Allen on Air America Radio, specifically on the Randi Rhodes show.

that this is the hot topic after the 3rd debate shows how thin their case is for re-election. what I don't get is that by referencing it, Kerry may have alienated some of the GOP's base right? But by continually bringing it up, aren't they exacerbating this problem over and over?

I guess they never learned from the whole 'parental advisory' sticker's effect on record sales...
posted by Busithoth at 10:07 AM on October 15, 2004


re: using daughter's lesbianism as a plot point

Age, Mary Cheney: 35
Age, Sisters: 23

Mary came out of the closet at the age of 12??? I kinda doubt it.
posted by mischief at 10:08 AM on October 15, 2004


mischief -- Maybe it was after reading Sisters that Mary switched sides?

OMG! She was gayed by Lynne!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:13 AM on October 15, 2004


"Log Cabin Republicans have a message for both campaigns. For Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards, you do not need to talk about the Vice President's daughter in order to discuss your positions on gay and lesbian issues. For President Bush and Karl Rove, you have a moral obligation to stop using gay and lesbian families as a political wedge issue. Our country and our party deserve better."
posted by rushmc at 10:18 AM on October 15, 2004


Don't forget, Keyes is rumored to have a lesbian daughter himself.
posted by fungible at 10:23 AM on October 15, 2004


oops, mischief, you are right. I was trying to say that Lynne had no problem including a lesbian affair in her harlequin romance-ish novel, but she seems to have a problem discussing Mary's lesbianism. This is my obtuse way of calling her an opportunist and a hypocrite. But now I realize my phrasing makes it look like she was writing about Mary. Sorry.

On an almost related note, please note the post title. heh.
posted by whatnot at 10:27 AM on October 15, 2004


it's no rumor, but fact, fungible.
posted by amberglow at 10:28 AM on October 15, 2004


Either Sisters or Flowers in the Attic for your teen sexual awakenings.

I do enjoy, however, the cognitive dissonance of "the base" trying to get outraged on behalf of a hellbound sodomite. "FIGHT FOR OUR LESBIAN DAUGHTER!!!" "Er, wha?"
posted by solistrato at 10:28 AM on October 15, 2004


My friend from Portland, OR came to visit me here in Wyoming with one thing on her mind: scour small public libraries and book stores, find this book and sell it on ebay (profit!). Too bad she showed up over Labor Day weekend, everything was closed.
posted by dual_action at 10:30 AM on October 15, 2004


BTW, I love these little media nontroversies. Who hires pundits, anyways? Why are they there?
posted by solistrato at 10:30 AM on October 15, 2004


Randi Rhodes is the COOLEST! Lynne Cheney is the UNCOOLEST!
posted by DenOfSizer at 10:35 AM on October 15, 2004


Well, it's fact that there were pictures of Ms. Keyes playing kissyface with another woman posted to a blog. However, that might not mean Ms. Keyes is a lesbian--she could be bisexual, after all.

Calvin Trillin's description of TV pundits as "the Sabbath gasbags" is still one of the most brilliant things ever written (note to under-30 and non-US MeFites--back in the dark ages, before cable, the talking-heads-political-discussion programs on US broadcast TV were all aired on Sunday mornings).
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:22 AM on October 15, 2004



posted by Peter H at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2004


did anyone not know before Wednesday that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian?

Yep. It gets worse. There are people in this country (I know of some in Waco, Texas, specifically - I'm sure there are others) who not only do not know who the presidential candidates are, they do not know who the current president of the country is. Never underestimate ignorance.
posted by majcher at 11:32 AM on October 15, 2004


I don't care about the lesbian crap, I still think Kerry was out of line to bring the opponent's kids into the debate under any context. If the opponent's dad is an ex-president, that's fair game, but leave the rest of the family out of it.
posted by 2sheets at 11:38 AM on October 15, 2004


I'm glad to see Sullivan make the same point I had. Mary was hired to do a specific job for Coors because she is gay. So, it is hard to think that mentioning her in context was wrong. But many in the Republican camp will read the headlines and not the text and come to the same conclusions this person who was published in today's Washington Post (emphasis mine):
Sen. John F. Kerry hit a low point when he gratuitously referred to the private life of Vice President Cheney's daughter. His campaign says she is "fair game." But she campaigns for her father as a loving daughter, nothing more. She does not campaign as a member of an interest group. The fact that the senator's running mate also raised the issue leads me to conclude that this was no passing reference.

Mr. Kerry decried how divided the country has become. But he was the one who crossed the line into unprovoked divisiveness by invoking a private family matter.
Mary Cheney wasn't outed by Kerry, so it isn't a "private family matter" and the fact that she was once employed by a major corporation (run by a Republican who is trying to get elected in his home state in CO) in order to use her sexuality to reach out to others who are also gay or lesbian means that she has used her own sexuality in a public manner. Not necessarily for outreach on behalf of her Dad or the President (I don't know what her role in the B/C04 campaign is), but still.

Again, the only people who will be outraged are those who think there is something wrong with being gay.
posted by terrapin at 11:39 AM on October 15, 2004


Has anyone ever fingered the suppurating scab?
posted by Peter H at 11:44 AM on October 15, 2004


nice. she should co-write something with bill o'reilly.

Falafel is Lebanese - not Lesbian.
posted by stonerose at 11:50 AM on October 15, 2004


I'm sorry, I just realized I should have posted that as an anonymous question to AskMefi
posted by Peter H at 12:14 PM on October 15, 2004


Log Cabin Republicans have a message for both campaigns.

So to summarize: Democrats, please stop using the names of our gay family members. Republicans, please stop sucking up to religious wingnuts by fostering a culture of hatred and discrimination against us. By the way, we're still Republicans.

These guys are one giant Stockholm Syndrome.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2004


Newsweek (Feb04) After her father became veep, Mary joined the gay-friendly Republican Unity Coalition and gave speeches encouraging the GOP to reach out to women, minorities and gays. "We can make sexual orientation a nonissue for the Republican Party, and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans," she said in an April 2002 statement. But when she joined the '04 campaign last year, Mary quit the coalition and seemed to fade into her own undisclosed location.

and what Armitage said...i'd be surprised if Bush gets even 5% of the gay vote this time.
posted by amberglow at 12:34 PM on October 15, 2004


She is not just an informal member of the campaign, or "...campaigns for her father as a loving daughter, nothing more. She does not campaign as a member of an interest group."

Bullshit. She is the Director of Vice Presidential Operations - an official position within the Bush/Cheney'04 apparatus. She is as fair game as any other operative. She is no longer a private citizen, she is as part of BC'04 as Marc Racicot is.
posted by plemeljr at 12:37 PM on October 15, 2004


Well I'm hurt to. Bad literature really hurts us all....

The reaction to Kerry's comments-- which would be acceptable to any out homo I know-- makes me suspect that Mary's bush-munching is still something to be tolerated, not accepted.

I am thoroughly offended by her parents' reaction, and I bet Mary is too. Then again, Mary's pain really doesn't interest me. She is working for an element of the Republican party that hates gay people. If she's hurt by recognition that she considers herself normal, she should really get her priorities straight.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:57 PM on October 15, 2004


Meanwhile, Cheney himself thanked Edwards for his kind words about Mary during the VP Debate.

i saw a big difference between the two. Edwards' words were indeed kind. Kerry's seemed like a calculated statement to appeal to christians and others opposed to homosexuality.

i don't think Kerry's mistake will hurt him much, but it was definitely a mistake.

the question was: "Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"

the first words out of Kerry's mouth were: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

totally embarrassing.

what's worse is that the rest of his response was pretty good. if he had only started with "Well, Bob, most modern research indicates that homosexuality is pretermined by a variety of factors, but whether or not it's a choice doesn't matter. We simply shouldn't be discriminating against people for personal beliefs and practices that don't hurt anyone."

imo, the Cheney reference was forced and a blatant appeal to those prejudiced against homosexuality.

on preview: yes, the reaction of the Cheneys is more embarrassing than Kerry's gaffe. for shame, Dick and Lynne.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:03 PM on October 15, 2004


But how would Kerry's line be construed as an appeal to homophobes? (I actually don't see it, I'm not trying to be argumentative.)
posted by solistrato at 1:10 PM on October 15, 2004


No, I see Kerry's line as kind of a childish "Ha, ha! Caught you in your own self-contradiction!" point-scoring.

Not his finest moment, in my opinion.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:13 PM on October 15, 2004


Four point lead for Bush at Zogby's. Neat. I guess the debates really didn't matter. They were just a "nuisance." I don't think there's any doubt Bush picks up votes when he just campaigns: his empty rhetoric plays well to a soundbite nation. But I legitimately thought it would take the last three weeks to close any gap and it'd end up with a close finish, although I did lament the fact that the debates ended so early in the run-up to the actual voting.

It might still be close, but this is not a positive development.
posted by The God Complex at 1:36 PM on October 15, 2004


I still think Kerry was out of line to bring the opponent's kids into the debate under any context.

And I think it's out of line for the Republicans to think it's alright to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. And I think it's out of line to try and change the fundemental apparatus of our entire country to attempt to appeal to the most base, ideologically bankrupt people in this country. If one tracks the progress of our constitution, you'll notice the trend has been towards giving rights, not taking them away. What a giant fucking step backwards. So terribly sorry that it upset you, I mean, it's only a large segment of the population's freedom that's being pissed on.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:38 PM on October 15, 2004


As for the lesbian issue, my prediction is it's spun into a dirty smear campaign by the democrats because, well, nobody ever mentions in the mainstream that Edwards didn't bring it up at the VP debate (was he supposed to avoid answering the question?). Plus the American media is consumed with making it seem like each party is equally dirty, even equating Move On with Swift Boat, despite the fact that Move On aren't a bunch of liars.

America is no longer l33t.
posted by The God Complex at 1:38 PM on October 15, 2004


Also, it's not surprising (but it sure is disappointing) that Abu Ghraib has all but disappeared from the headlines? Kerry didn't even bring it up during the debates. Also, to fight the flip-flopper issue, why hasn't Kerry been showing the clips of him voting for the war in Iraq where he clearly warns the administration in no uncertain terms not to go about it improperly?

Kerry seems like he'd be a good president and I have a lot more respect for him now that I know more about him, but I don't think there's any question they've run an inept, bumbling campaign, but they can't spin it as well as the Republicans. The American Gulag has been forgotten in favour of flip flops and empty rhetoric about marching freedoms.

I'm going to go drown myself in the toilet ;)

PS - The irony of this novel is hilarious. This whole situation is so bizarrely beyond the pale that the one positive to come out of it all might be a glut of wonderful literature and film (we need a new Stanley Kubrick).
posted by The God Complex at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2004


I didn't see it as embarrassing at all--but then i am a gay American who doesn't work for hypocritical homophobes (including my own flesh and blood).
Mary is a lesbian--if it's ok for that fact to be mentioned in public when it scores you points, it's ok for your opponent to mention that fact in public too. It's nothing shameful or to be pitied, or equivalent to criminals or the insane, even tho the Republican base believes that to be so. More and more, troutfishing's post is seeming relevant to everything.

And what Civil said.

(we were never l33t, TGC, but then we weren't officially enshrining restriction of American's rights into the constitution either)
posted by amberglow at 1:47 PM on October 15, 2004


Yeah, amberglow, but even through all the evil shit your country has been responsible for in the last five decades, there was always this sense that they were progressing towards something better; there was some forward progress. Now it's run by a bunch of imperial jackals out to shape the world in their image.
posted by The God Complex at 2:24 PM on October 15, 2004


I know--we're going backwards. That's why i talk about the election so much. It has to be stopped and reversed, and i have faith we will. A majority of people in the country feel we're on the wrong track too. (and this has happened before, but it's being taken to an extreme.)
posted by amberglow at 2:42 PM on October 15, 2004


we were never l33t, TGC, but then we weren't officially enshrining restriction of American's rights into the constitution either

Are you kidding? Have you ever read the constitution? Yes, it was later amended, but let's be honest: we've got prior offenses.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:42 PM on October 15, 2004


Kerry is getting clobbered on this point. Just abused.

People don't see this -- this is a classic Karl Rove sort of moment.

Kerry said "lesbian" on national TV. That makes a huge portion of the audience wince -- it just isn't polite talk. The GOP is going to keep a steady drip-drip-drip going on this "story" just to keep saying: "He said lesbian! He said lesbian!"

Second, many people think -- or, rather, feel -- that having a lesbian daughter is a shameful family secret and is, once again, something just not talked about in polite society. Those many people probably felt that Kerry's statement was jarring or just rude. (Not that they ever would have thought about it again if the GOP hadn't flooded the press with it.)

Lots of lefties in the past few days have been arguing about the cognitive dissonance in all this, but Rove et al don't give two wet shits about cognitive dissonance. They trade in it; they live off it. This is an emotional, painful topic for most people, and they're sticking it on John Kerry's forehead.

He needs to say: "I don't understand why the Cheneys are upset. But I also know that family is family, and politics aren't important by comparison, so I offer an apology."
posted by argybarg at 2:45 PM on October 15, 2004


He shouldn't apologize for anything--if people are bigots, let them vote for the party that encourages them in their bigotry (guess which one that is?). Kerry won't lost a single vote over this, and may even pick up some.

sonofsam, Prohibition(18th) is the only amendment i see that takes away anything, when i look--and that's not at all in the same league.
posted by amberglow at 2:49 PM on October 15, 2004


won't lose a single vote...
posted by amberglow at 2:50 PM on October 15, 2004


argybarg, you truly think Kerry should give credence to their fake outrage? That would be about as smart as cleaning a gun while its loaded and the trigger is attached to your dog's tail.

Kerry should not look back and apologize for something that Cheney is stirring up to rile up his base and get them at their spit fleckled best.

Mary Cheney works on the campaign, she's fair game. Don't like it? Then stay out of the damned spotlight and don't stump for your homophobe daddy and his God-fearin' queer-hatin' boss.

I just LOVE how non-issues like this dominate the media when we're up to our noses in shit in Iraq with no way out, our economy is in the shitter, Bush keeps giving away huge sums of money to companies to help them send jobs overseas. And yet the moronic masses stand behind him like he's some genius.

The debates, apparently, didn't matter at all. And that truly just sickens me because it means that the spin is all that matters.

Damn, I am so incredibly sick of politics. But none of us can let our guards down because that's exactly what the GOP wants, impotent apathy.
posted by fenriq at 3:10 PM on October 15, 2004


I actually think Prohibition is pretty comparable. A bunch of religious bigots lobbied really hard to get a right taken away from other people, because it somehow offended their religious beliefs that those other people were doing and enjoying something that was perfectly fine according to their religious/moral beliefs.

If by some fluke the constitutional anti-gay-marriage amendment ever passed, my prediction is that it would bite the dust even faster than the Volstead Act did.

And if "family was separate from politics", then why is the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign paying Mary Cheney a salary?

I don't think one person who was going to vote for Kerry will be at all influenced by Cheney's fake outrage. Not one.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:13 PM on October 15, 2004


My parents might have voted for Kerry, one or both of them. I'm sure they were beginning to think of him as cool and reasonable. But they're of a generation that can't bear to hear people bring up subjects like that so baldly. They stand on social conventions, and they want their candidate to do so as well.

I would guess that they also see this social convention at work: regardless of whether you think it's right to bring a member of someone else's family into a discussion, if the other family says "leave our daughter out of this," you say: "Fine. I can use another example." Not doing so seems just rude.

I don't feel this way at all, any of it. But I think a lot of people out there do, and some of them would vote for Kerry if they're sure that he's a reasonable and presidential sort of man, rather than a tone-deaf liberal. At this point Kerry can't afford to seem jarring; he has to talk in a way that the general public doesn't find controversial or off-putting.
posted by argybarg at 3:28 PM on October 15, 2004


Again, the only people who will be outraged are those who think there is something wrong with being gay.

Or those who believe that blatantly leaping at the opportunity to slam a political opponent on a personal matter of a relative just because it's known to be a hot-button issue for a lot of people is a tactless, classless move. Not everyone chooses to shout one's sexuality (of whatever flavor) from the rooftops like some here on Metafilter do, and that should be respected wherever possible.

if people are bigots, let them vote for the party that encourages them in their bigotry

Well, duh. That's what just under 50% of the population has done/will do again.
posted by rushmc at 3:29 PM on October 15, 2004


I actually think Prohibition is pretty comparable. A bunch of religious bigots lobbied really hard to get a right taken away from other people, because it somehow offended their religious beliefs that those other people were doing and enjoying something that was perfectly fine according to their religious/moral beliefs.

Actually, it is a slight bit more complicated than that. Prohibition was also about class and politics. Taverns and bars were hotbeds organization by the Eugene Debbs voting labor movement, filled with a motley mix of Irish, Poles, Italians and other unwashed immigrants with unpronounceable names. I suspect that the fights over gay marriage is not just about gay marriage or even about religion.

Gay marriage is, in part, one line drawn in the sand in regards to a secular society and nationalism. One of the critical questions about gay marriage is how willing is the government willing to actively embrace pluralism as a central feature of American culture.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:45 PM on October 15, 2004


When did Cheney say "leave our daughter out of this"? Was it when he put her on salary to his campaign to do outreach to gay voters? Or was it when he talked on and on about her at his press conference about gay marriage just before the first Presidential debate?

I'm sorry, argybarg, but I don't think the incredibly-repressed-oldster vote is going to be a big swing factor in this election. If your parents think that social protocols are important, I can't imagine why on Earth they would vote for George W. Bush, either.

And KirkJobSluder, I agree about some of the political issues you raise, but not the class issues. The heartland Nativists who spearheaded the Volstead Act were mostly poor agricultural workers. Tying Debs to the "wets" also seems sort of odd; Debs himself was anti-alcohol, and the Socialist Party of America had a strong Prohibitionist element (I believe there were debates at every SPA convention in the early 1900s about including prohibition in their party platform--Sweden was often pointed to as an example of a successfully Socialist and successfuly prohibitionist nation).
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:58 PM on October 15, 2004


And does anyone else have a problem seeing the name of veep candidate John Edwards and thinking about the "The Biggest Douche in the Universe"?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:59 PM on October 15, 2004


Many of those oldsters have gay children and/or grandchildren, too, and more and more have openly gay people in their lives in one form or another.

Kirk: nope--altho i love that episode, Edwards doesn't at all come off like the other John Edwards.
posted by amberglow at 4:11 PM on October 15, 2004


My question remains unanswered.
posted by Peter H at 4:29 PM on October 15, 2004


I ask, for Lynne. I don't want her to feel alone.
The worst is feeling like you're alone and no one else is like you, or into the same sorts of things.
posted by Peter H at 4:32 PM on October 15, 2004


*gives Peter big kiss* : >
posted by amberglow at 5:47 PM on October 15, 2004


Many of those oldsters have gay children and/or grandchildren, too, and more and more have openly gay people in their lives in one form or another.

Let's not be coy (or insular): the vast majority still don't. And majorities are what win (fair) elections.
posted by rushmc at 7:02 PM on October 15, 2004


What voters thought:

An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, according to the latest Washington Post tracking survey.

Nearly two in three likely voters -- 64 percent -- said Kerry's comment was "inappropriate," including more than four in 10 of his own supporters and half of all swing voters. A third -- 33 percent -- thought the remark was appropriate.


So whether you think they should have felt this way or not, it was a bad step for Kerry.
posted by rushmc at 7:37 PM on October 15, 2004


Um...not coy at all:
Gays and lesbians have experienced a dramatic rise in acceptance over the last two decades, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.
Almost 7 in 10 Americans know someone who is gay or lesbian and say they would not be troubled if their elementary school-age child had a homosexual teacher. Six in 10 say they are sympathetic to the gay community, displaying an increasing inclination to view same-sex issues through a prism of societal accommodation rather than moral condemnation. ... The fact that 69 percent of those polled said they know a gay or lesbian -- up from 46 percent in 1985 -- is particularly significant, Gates said. "Being gay is no longer an abstraction. It's my friend, my neighbor, my brother, my office mate."

I'll find more polls and stats if you wish...maybe you shouldn't be coy if you don't know the facts yourself.
posted by amberglow at 7:58 PM on October 15, 2004


Opinion Polls: Knowing Someone Gay

What the Polls Show (giant roundup of many polls on granting equal rights relationshipwise, civil unions etc)
posted by amberglow at 8:07 PM on October 15, 2004


ha, *blushes like the wife of an inhuman pig*
posted by Peter H at 8:11 PM on October 15, 2004


aw : >

an interesting thing from Slate on this: We can argue about whether Kerry's posture of moral superiority on this issue is entirely earned. After all, he, too, claims to oppose gay marriage (because "marriage is between a man and a woman," an argument whose essence is "because I say so"). But Kerry's record is more tolerant than his campaign rhetoric suggests, and even his campaign rhetoric is more tolerant than Bush's. Kerry wants to make that a reason for swing voters who deplore bigotry to vote for him. I think that's what made Lynne Cheney spitting mad--she resents the implication that the Bush-Cheney campaign sold out her own gay daughter. But you know what? It did. And you know what else? The evidence that Kerry would treat gays with greater tolerance than Bush is a pretty good reason to vote for Kerry.
posted by amberglow at 8:21 PM on October 15, 2004


i saw a big difference between the two. Edwards' words were indeed kind. Kerry's seemed like a calculated statement to appeal to christians and others opposed to homosexuality.

oddly I almost felt the opposite. Edwards' comment rubbed me the wrong way - I guess I felt from the start that it was disingenuous, that he was going on about it to make a point to republicans. Kerry's reference was much more in passing, on the way to making a point about what homosexuality is to begin with. Yes, Edwards was specifically responding to a question about Cheney, but he still milked it more than seemed appropriate to me. Kerry made his point and backed it up with an example that would be familiar but not hollywood, and which would also point out the other side's hypocrisy.

I think argybarg is right. People are responding viscerally to his having said "lesbian" which they regard as a Bad Word. I think Lynne cheney's reaction is abhorrent and hope the daughter gets a clue soon, though.

And seriously, what's the deal with that book? that is amazing. I had no idea. Perhaps a certain level of lady lovin' runs in the family and lynne cheney's reaction is repressed self hatred...
posted by mdn at 9:42 PM on October 15, 2004


Well, thinking more about the hooplah about Kerry's gaffe.

1: I get a strong sense that this outrage is highly orchestrated. Why blow up over Kerry's inappropriate but supportive name-dropping and not Edwards' or Keyes pointed insult?

2: I think the "low-blow" factor comes because Kerry is the first one to give voice to the paradox that must be on everybody's mind in regards to the Cheney family. If Cheney is so proud of his daughter, then why support legislation that would act against her bests interests? Keyes was on the republican message, Edwards could be shoehorned into the message, but Kerry could not.

3: This is the first time that I've read Andrew Sullivan and thought, "wow he nailed it on multiple dimensions". I agree with his impression a lot of the outrage comes not out of concern for Mary Cheney, but out of the sense that homosexuality like mental illness or drug addiction should be treated as some sort of a hidden family secret, that might be OK for members of the family to discuss, but not OK for anybody else to discuss. Rush Limbaugh's comment is that this is not a topic that people would discuss at the dinner table. Another thing that he nailed is that Mary Cheney is an experienced, professional, behind the scenes politician. If anybody should be outraged, it is Mary Cheney. So why not give her the microphone, or have her make the press release?

4: personally, as an out bisexual man, I would much rather see my parents express outrage over Keyes' pointed insult, then express outrage at Kerry for something that I say all the time.

5: either way, it looks like both sides are playing political football.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:59 PM on October 15, 2004


Why blow up over Kerry's inappropriate but supportive name-dropping and not Edwards' or Keyes pointed insult?

Well, no one's discussing Bush's lies during the debate (especially the not concerned about Osama thing), or discussing the debate at all, or Rove testifying in the Plame case, or the new dead in Iraq and our hundredth attempt at retaking Fallujah, or the continuing bad economic news, or the voter fraud stuff, or the new documents released concerning Bush's national guard "service", or...
posted by amberglow at 10:07 PM on October 15, 2004


The simple truth is, Kerry clearly won the three debates, so they need to come up with something to counter. And it's working like a charm.

And as for this:

"An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a lesbian"

Ask those same voters how they feel about lesbianism in general, then cross-reference. I'd bet a large number of the people that were uncomfortable with it were uncomfortable with the general notion, and didn't like "gays" thrown in their face. It's bad enough that we have to deal with them on sitcoms nowadays! They're everywhere!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:38 AM on October 16, 2004


I'd bet a large number of the people that were uncomfortable with it were uncomfortable with the general notion, and didn't like "gays" thrown in their face.

Which, as I said, makes it a bad campaign decision.

Amberglow, you really should get out of NYC once in a while. It's very different out here.
posted by rushmc at 7:29 AM on October 16, 2004


rush, counter with stats that show the opposite if you disagree--don't be an ass. You know how to google, no?

I stated: Many of those oldsters have gay children and/or grandchildren, too, and more and more have openly gay people in their lives in one form or another.
I proved that true. It's true all over the country, even in the Bible Belt and in red states. There aren't just openly gay people in NY and SF--people are out everywhere, even if it's at a high personal cost--and welcome to the 21st century. Even states that have recently passed anti-marriage amendments had hefty percentages voting against the idea.
posted by amberglow at 10:23 AM on October 16, 2004


from Wash. Post (May 04): Results of a poll released last week by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg National Election Survey show that a large majority of Americans do not want their home states to ratify laws allowing gay men or lesbians to wed. Call the couplings civil unions instead of marriage, though, and enough people say yes to create a slim majority for the idea of some form of legal recognition for gay couples. And more Americans oppose amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage than support that approach. (poll broken up into red, blue, and purple state responses)
posted by amberglow at 10:55 AM on October 16, 2004


fafblog on Mary and all lesbians:
... 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. ...

posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on October 16, 2004


Believe what you want. Makes me no nevermind how deluded you choose to be. :::shrug:::
posted by rushmc at 12:05 PM on October 16, 2004


« Older Name that tune in the UGO Music Challenge....  |  The Risk of an unending series... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments