Among endless piles of motions, jury instructions, and related flotsam, a few items occur to me. In no particular order:
1. I scored last night’s debate as a narrow win for Kerry. So far, then, I have a “Kerry Blowout”; a “Cheney Snatches Defeat From the Jaws of Victory (by his misstatements)”; a “Bush Narrow Win”; and a “Kerry Narrow Win.” The Bush campaign can’t be happy. (And, frankly, I’m not happy with the prospect that Kerry may be the least bad of the alternatives.) Expect the campaign to get much, much (more) negative.
2. As it goes negative, though, Kerry and Edwards oughta stop using Cheney’s daughter as a political tool. It ain’t right. But, righties, please quit with putative outrage: Mary Cheney has made her sexual orientation public knowledge; accordingly, she is not being “outed” and her privacy is not being “invaded.” And, as Sullivan notes, its perfectly fair to point out that the Bush Administration’s policies have a human face (and cost).
(I find Professor Bainbridge‘s comment “Using the daughter of an opponent as political weapon was a low blow, but using the most intimate details of her personal life for his own political gain is a dirty trick worthy of Richard Nixon” to be particularly silly. Its premise (“intimate details”) is flat-out wrong, and the comparison to Nixon is utterly unconvincing. Kerry and Edwards are repeating a commonly-known public fact; their calculated use of that fact may be “dirty,” but it ain’t no “trick.”)
3. I’ll take back all my criticisms of Professor Bainbridge, however, if he commits to making “Bainbridge on Wine” searchable by brand and year. (Please.)
4. I’m terribly late in penning my “Defense of Lincoln” to Vox Day. If he’s reading: it’s coming. Promise.
Kerry and Edwards are repeating a commonly-known public fact; their calculated use of that fact may be “dirty,” but it ain’t no “trick.”)
Do you think that it actually is “dirty”, or are you merely allowing for the possibility?
If the GOP are so concerned about Cheney’s daughter, I’d suggest they work to change the law so her partner can make an honest woman out of her.
The mindnumbing hypocrisy of Bush supporters claiming Kerry is somehow exploiting the gay issue makes me want to hurl.
Mary Cheney is a national role model. She is also campaiging for her father…you can’t get much more public than that.
Really…conservatives outraged by the exploitation of Mary Cheney could put their rhetorical money where their mouths are and denounce the FMA.
Do you think that it actually is “dirty”, or are you merely allowing for the possibility?
I do think it a bit dirty, because it plays to the baser human instincts. (In this case, homophobia.) But Ed‘s arguments are well taken.
I do think it a bit dirty, because it plays to the baser human instincts.
What if I had said it?
I ask because what your implying is that Kerry doesn’t respect Mary Cheney. But I see nothing in his record to suggest that’s true.
I believe he was trying to put a clear human face on the issue, because that’s how he sees it.
I’m sure he was horrified to hear Lynn Cheney’s take on it, unless he felt she was exploiting it.
The whole cheney’s daughter thing has been fascinating, (along the lines of finding things in your fridge that have gotten all moldy fascinating) Yes, a bit of a dirty pool, but given the fact that any other invocation of defending the rights of homosexuals would be played to the Republican base as the downfall of civilization as we know it, I’m wondering how else Kerry could do this. I think he needs to connect with those for whom this issue is important. I’d be interested to know how Kerry could bring up this topic in a way that immunizes the campaign from attacks by the Republicans and doesn’t invoke Cheney’s daughter.
What if I had said it?
I ask because what your implying is that Kerry doesn’t respect Mary Cheney. But I see nothing in his record to suggest that’s true.
Kerry may very well respect Mary Cheney, but he’s using her as a wedge against her father. Mary and Dick’s relationship is not the functional equivalent of a wrench in a campaign toolbox. It’s intrusive and wrong.
Mary and Dick’s relationship is not the functional equivalent of a wrench in a campaign toolbox. It’s intrusive and wrong.
I didn’t read it that way. Sullivan didn’t read it that way. No offense, but I suspect the people who read it that way don’t fully understand yet that gay people are proud of who they are and don’t feel it’s anything to be hush-hush about (or at least that’s what they strive for once they come out, which Mary is).
If he had used Cheney’s other daughter as an example of a mother who would benefit from his health care plans, no one would be objecting…they might find it odd, but certainly not offensive.
The question was not about the FMA, remember, it was about whether homosexuality was a choice. Mary Cheney was a very good example of a human face to illustrate why Bush should care a bit more than he suggested he did.
Kerry may very well respect Mary Cheney, but he’s using her as a wedge against her father.
Huh? Do you have any reason at all to believe that Dick Cheney doesn’t respect and love his daughter? I don’t, and I don’t say that with any liking for Dick Cheney whatsoever.
i second Edward, well said!
I didn’t read it that way. Sullivan didn’t read it that way. No offense, but I suspect the people who read it that way don’t fully understand yet that gay people are proud of who they are and don’t feel it’s anything to be hush-hush about (or at least that’s what they strive for once they come out, which Mary is).
I appreciate the sentiment, as well as your decision to trust Kerry on this point, but I did not sense that Kerry and Edwards cited Mary in a gay pride kinda way. I sensed they cited Mary as part of an appeal to a homophobia.
As for “but I suspect the people who read it that way don’t fully understand yet that gay people are proud of who they are” — not all of them. Some of them have a sense of the vast reservoirs of homophobia that lurk in the hinterlands and realize that what some regard with pride, others will see as a slur. IOW, your, my Wilfred’s, Sullivan’s, Jes’s, et al.’s reaction to mention of Mary Cheney’s sexuality is not necessarily everyone’s reaction to mention of Mary Cheney’s sexuality.
IOW, your, my Wilfred’s, Sullivan’s, Jes’s, et al.’s reaction to mention of Mary Cheney’s sexuality is not necessarily everyone’s reaction to mention of Mary Cheney’s sexuality.
Perhaps it’s just my hope that it would be causing me to not see your point here.
Von: IOW, your, my Wilfred’s, Sullivan’s, Jes’s, et al.’s reaction to mention of Mary Cheney’s sexuality is not necessarily everyone’s reaction to mention of Mary Cheney’s sexuality.
And, so? Should Kerry cater to the bigots in the audience by treating Mary Cheney’s sexuality – which she herself is absolutely open about – as a dark secret not to be mentioned?
And, so? Should Kerry cater to the bigots in the audience by treating Mary Cheney’s sexuality – which she herself is absolutely open about – as a dark secret not to be mentioned?
I believe that’s the charge…that he is catering to them.
Andrew Sullivan quotes Kevin Arnovitz with approval:
I actually think I’m more or less with von on this one. The comment was just a bit too personal for comfort, and I winced when Kerry said it. He walked up to the line and, in my opinion, stepped over it. But the hand-wringing going on over this is almost surreal, and suggests that Kerry’s uncharacteristically clumsy comment has opened a festering sore in the psyche of the Republican party.
I don’t think Kerry was making a play to gain or suppress the votes of bigots because it should be painfully clear that if you want to slow or halt the advancement of equal rights for gays, Bush is your best bet. But the fact that folks like Bird Dog over at Tacitus and Trevino at Red State are effectively accusing Kerry of trying to steal or alienate the coveted homophobe vote from Bush, much the way Bush and Rove tried to steal the crucial racist vote from McCain in SC in 2000, speaks to the need for some serious soul-searching within some corners of the GOP.
Judging by Red State’s continued support of Jim “no gay teachers” DeMint and Tom “rampant teen lesbians” Coburn, I won’t hold my breath for the self-examination to start there.
I really question most of your comments on this issue. Yes, Mary Cheney is out to her friends. In no case that I have ever heard of have I seen anything of Mary Cheney pandering to the gay people because she is one. She is gay and her parents love and accept her. That appears to be the limit of what she makes of it. For Kerry to attempt to use her against her father and the president in a campaign situation is a really low blow. Had they been tramping around the country parading Mary out to the gays would be one thing and that is something they haven’t done. If they had done that then the comment would have been OK. Since they have not done that then this is indeed a comment of the lowest and Kerry and Edwards both should be castigated for it. It seems to be an attempt to drive a wedge between a father and mother and their daughter and that is never fair game.
Not a big fan of the tactic. The intent, I think, is abundantly clear. It’s the same reason that the Kossacks pull their hair and shrilly scream ‘OMFG, Cheney’s daughter is GAY!’. . . because it seems the Republicans have officialy declared homosexuals as an enemy, and having the VPs daughter be an enemy is sort of a rift-opener. If the intent was to humanize homosexuality, you’d go with some public figure, like Leonardo diCaprio.
But it’s not the intent that makes it naughty, it’s the fact that Ms. Cheney probably doesn’t want to be used that way. Kerry (and Edwards) were basically faking comity with someone who very likely felt none of it.
But all in all, an almost completely meaningless event.
Once again i’m baffled.
Mary Cheney is a leading member of the Cheney campaign and open about her sexuality.
The moderator asks if homosexuality is a choice.
Kerry’s answer is, essentially, go ask a gay person, like mary cheney. she’ll probably tell you it’s who she is, not just a choice.
the tacitus thread revolves around two basic points: this is “exploitation” and it involves a “family matter”.
the second is clearly wrong — she is a leading member of the campaign. she doesn’t have to work for her dad.
the first is just weird: Mary is openly gay. how is a reference to her open sexuality exploitation. i just don’t understand.
i also read a lot of mind fouls. what did Kerry intend? who the hell knows? since Bush supported the FMA, maybe Kerry wanted to point out to Bush the personal impact of that political decision. maybe Kerry wanted to point out that gays exist everywhere in our society, including in the families of very conservative republicans.
and making assumptions about Kerry’s intended goals of making the statement is weird too. maybe kerry was trying to get republican bigots to stay home. maybe kerry was trying to get log cabin and socially liberal republicans either to stay home or vote democratic.
i see no evidence that Kerry is ashamed of Mary Cheney, or that Mary Cheney is ashamed of herself, or that Dick Cheney is ashamed of her. But I do see that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter. where else does the “tawdry” comment come from?
could someone please explain what i’m missing.
Francis
“That appears to be the limit of what she makes of it.”
Actually, she ran outreach to the gay community for Coors. So she makes it her career.
“Since they have not done that then this is indeed a comment of the lowest and Kerry and Edwards both should be castigated for it.”
The ‘lowest’? ‘castigated’? Come on now. Like I said, it was kind of shoddy, but in your eagerness to get some anti-Kerry leverage, don’t blow it.
I guess I’m just dense. Somebody’s going to have to spell it out for me, in plain English.
The Sen is asked if he thinks homosexuality is a choice and he says — using the example of a gay person everyone has heard of, who’s character and upbringing no one can impeach, who can’t be dismissed as a fraud or a weirdo — that he thinks she’s being who she is. (As opposed to being gay because of some kind of twisted upbringing, or whatever it is that people of the other view think would make heterosexual people “choose” homosexuality.)
And this is supposed to be an appeal to bigots?
I just don’t get it.
(I do get the squeals from people who have to face the fact that the example of MC obliterates their tired stereotypes, and completely undercuts their bigoted agenda).
. . . and I think that the VP’s recent mention of his daughter’s status, in a public forum, as an example in an answer to a policy question, is also a factor that makes the Sen’s mention of it — a completely favorable mention, I might add — less than outrageous.
It seems to be an attempt to drive a wedge between a father and mother and their daughter and that is never fair game.
No it’s not. For heaven’s sake, why would Kerry want to personally harm the Cheneys? I can see two possible reasons for the reference: first, as LJ said above, it’s harder for those who are not inclined to be tolerant to write off the VP’s daughter than some random person that Kerry might have mentioned; and second, it works as an oblique charge of hypocrisy or heartlessness, since it reminds audiences that Bush&Cheney are acting against the supposed interests of Cheney’s own daughter.
For the record, I too cringed when Kerry mentioned her name, but only because I felt that it was inappropriate for him to try to use the other side’s family members against them, no matter what particular trait was being discussed. I really can’t fathom why people see it as Kerry “catering to homophobes” — can someone who did react that way try to explain what it was about the reference that left that impression?
For the record, I too cringed when Kerry mentioned her name, but only because I felt that it was inappropriate for him to try to use the other side’s family members against them, no matter what particular trait was being discussed.
Exactly. It was in mildly poor taste, but was not a personal attack on Ms. Cheney, nor was it gay-baiting.
Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney replied: “Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue that our family is very familiar with. … With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free — ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Is everyone not aware here that Mary Cheney made a living out of her sexuality? She was paid as a gay person by the Coors company to be their outreach person to the gay and lesbian community in order to hike the sales of their products to them. She now works for the campaign (you know, the one that supports the FMA).
Any attempt to make her a private citizen here is laughable. The reason Red State and Tacitus are squealing is that they have no other thing to spin people with as their candidate lost yet another debate.
And may I say one more thing, this time about momma Lynn. She denied in 2000 that her daughter was gay when Mary had already been working at the job listed above. So when she starts making these kinds of accusations calling John Kerry “not a good man” she needs to look in her mirror because only a sub-par mother would dishoner her own daughter publicly this way.
If the intent was to humanize homosexuality, you’d go with some public figure, like Leonardo diCaprio.
Leo’s gay?
it’s harder for those who are not inclined to be tolerant to write off the VP’s daughter than some random person that Kerry might have mentioned; and second, it works as an oblique charge of hypocrisy or heartlessness
That is the answer.
So when she starts making these kinds of accusations calling John Kerry “not a good man” she needs to look in her mirror because only a sub-par mother would dishoner her own daughter publicly this way.
Exactly!!!!
. . . and I also accept that plenty of people over on the other side of the street are talking about this today because they don’t want to talk about the minimum wage, or Osama, or the smirk, or the polls, or . . .
. . . and the idea of mentioning someone from Hollywood? Geez, what planet are you living on! No “normal” people live there . . .
;- )
An interesting exercise would be to list the other people that Kerry could have mentioned and imagine the reaction they would have gotten, but I was hoping that someone else would bring up the example and then have to defend it (seulement pour encourage les autres…)
Here’s my off the top of my head list
Matthew Shepard
Barney Frank
Jim McGreevey
Ellen deGeneres
Newt Gingrich’s sister
I’m having a really hard time imagining a person who could have been chosen that would make sense in terms of what was being asked and actually making an impact. I mean, if Kerry wanted to do a Dan Quayle, he could have picked the guy on Will and Grace, right?
“Leo’s gay?”
Oh, come on. You don’t see it?
“I’m having a really hard time imagining a person who could have been chosen that would make sense in terms of what was being asked”
I think Liberace would have been the most tasteful and sympathetic choice.
An interesting exercise would be to list the other people that Kerry could have mentioned and imagine the reaction they would have gotten
Again, Mary was perfect. She’s not a supporter of Kerry, so for him to express respect for her should have gained him points, not criticism.
VP debate. Not so long ago. In what way was JFK’s mention of MC last night “exploitation” but this by Edwards was not?
IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.
I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family’s experience as a context for your remarks.
Can you describe then your administration’s support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?
CHENEY: Gwen, you’re right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It’s really no one else’s business.
That’s a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.
. . .
EDWARDS: . . .
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
. . .
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That’s it?
CHENEY: That’s it.
I think Liberace would have been the most tasteful and sympathetic choice.
LOL
that reminds me of how, upon Liberace’s death, the London newspaper The Mirror, who had been successfully sued by Liberatce for calling him gay, demanded their money back…speaking of tasteful and sympathetic…
The text of Kerry’s statement that makes him a bad man in the eyes of Lynne Cheney:
“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.”
How is that statement “bad”? The only reason it’s an issue is that homophobic bigots think gay people are twisted individuals who “choose” to be gay, are sexual deviates who choose to lead “cheap and tawdry” lives, are damned souls who choose to sin in the eyes of the lord.
I’m sure that if you asked John McCain’s daughter, who was born in Bangladesh, she would tell you that she’s comfortable in her brown skin, she’s ok being who she is.
I’m sure that if you asked George Bush’s children, who are women, they would tell you that they’re being who they are, they’re living their lives as women in the modern world.
I’m sure that if you asked Howard Dean’s wife, who is a doctor, she would tell that she’s ok working and not having children.
The only reason it’s impolite to bring up Mary Cheney is that some consider it impolite to bring up homosexuality, rather than accept it as a simple fact of life.
And there’s this from Marshall:
Indeed
Back from a nice long (!) day of work: I also don’t get the outrage about this. It would of course be different if Mary Cheney weren’t quite public about her sexual orientation, and/or if she were not a public figure (not in virtue of being Cheney’s child, but in virtue of her position with the campaign) who has at times made her living reaching out to the gay community. But she is; and that being the case, I don’t see what the big deal is.
I think that the Republicans were all set to crucify Kerry if he mentioned Christopher Reeves’ name, and when he didn’t, they had to find an outlet. Those talking points are like cherry bombs, what good are they if they don’t get used?
I do think it a bit dirty, because it plays to the baser human instincts. (In this case, homophobia.)
Uhhhh… whose homophobia?
Kerry may very well respect Mary Cheney, but he’s using her as a wedge against her father.
How?
abf: The only reason it’s impolite to bring up Mary Cheney is that some consider it impolite to bring up homosexuality, rather than accept it as a simple fact of life.
Exactly so. And, also, of course, if someone is not open about their sexuality, it would be impolite to bring it up – and it would be appalling to reference it on primetime television. But Mary Cheney is out and public about being a lesbian: Dick Cheney is clearly comfortable with it: Kerry’s comment was respectful and in no way could be construed as an attack on either Mary Cheney or her family – unless you think that merely referencing the fact that someone’s a lesbian is a personal attack. Which, if you do, indicates that you have a problem with homosexuality – not that there is any problem with homosexuality.
Gromit: But the fact that folks like Bird Dog over at Tacitus and Trevino at Red State are effectively accusing Kerry of trying to steal or alienate the coveted homophobe vote from Bush, much the way Bush and Rove tried to steal the crucial racist vote from McCain in SC in 2000, speaks to the need for some serious soul-searching within some corners of the GOP.
Well said.
Wait, I have to double-check this.
People are seriously suggesting Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney, to try to get the homophobe vote?
Really?
I can’t even begin to get my head round that one. I thought people might say that he was doing it to cause anti-homophobes in the Republican Party to vote Democrat, or to make the issue an apparent wedge between Bush and Cheney for undecideds to pick up on, and I ought to say that his remarks were a lot less open to such allegations when in their original context – but to appeal to the homophobe vote?
Seriously?
James Casey: People are seriously suggesting Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney, to try to get the homophobe vote?
Well, on Redstate, they are, yes.
“The two candidates on the Dem ticket didn’t simply happen to bring up Mary Cheney ex nihilo — they did so as part of a calculated effort to peel some small portion of Bush’s base away from him. That portion being, presumably, the gay-hating ignorants who also watch televised 90-minute campaign events. …. they’re for tolerance, except when they can subtly appeal to bigotry to squeeze out a few more votes.”
The more I think about this attitude, the more I think it stinks.
Well… in some ghastly way, marks for originality. I’m not suggesting – though Voice of All Authority “The West Wing” has leaned that way – the Republican Party is the party of homophobia (Moe’s mini-bio on this site shows he for one is against that); but I don’t recall Democrats being accused of homophobia before. Which I suppose is why I find it so difficult to believe.
…and yes, I know they’re not being accused of homophobia per se, but they’re being accused of trying to get kudos from homophobes, which isn’t massively different.
People are seriously suggesting Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney, to try to get the homophobe vote?
Yes. Two core Democratic constituencies — union workers and African Americans — tend to be, as a statistical matter, more homophobic than the population at large. Both constituencies are key to Kerry’s chances of winning certain U.S. states, like, say, Ohio.
Jes —
Redstate’s take is idiotic. The political calculation behind the comment (to the extent there is one) is to make (for instance) union workers more comfortable with voting for Kerry. It’s the “well, maybe Kerry and Bush are pretty much the same on this gay marriage thingy. Cheney’s got a gay daughter, after all.”
Y’all do see that, don’t you? Mary Cheney is being used to play to a homophobic audience. It ain’t right.
von
It just really warms my heart to see Redstate and Tacitus.org out there fighting for every last homophobe vote that they can get. How dare the Democrats try to steal the gay-hating vote from them?It’s everywhere, it’s everywhere!
(I’m only partly sarcastic. This is why, despite my libertarianism, I don’t vote for GOP presidential candidates; no tax rate is low enough to bribe me to support that kind of nonsense.)
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a talking point propagate so quickly, by the way.
Y’all do see that, don’t you? Mary Cheney is being used to play to a homophobic audience. It ain’t right.
Well, that definitely helps to explain your take. However, I didn’t read it that way at all — her name was brought up in the context of a very non-homophobic statement, and her orientation is already well-known (and was brought up by Cheney himself), so I think your interpretation is rather a stretch.
Von, that doesn’t make much sense – the African-American bit I mean. Kerry actually needs to play for their vote? Isn’t that sort of sewn up?
And who do the unions traditionally go for?
That’s rich Phil. I especially liked this bit: “the private life of Vice President Cheney’s daughter.” The fact that she’s gay, the only point Kerry made, is in no way whatsoever “private.” The Cheneys’ themselves openly acknowledge it.
Bush uses the FMA to divide the nation, and his spincritters turn it around to make Kerry the bad guy…very, very rich.
But even better is this bit: “unprovoked divisiveness.”
Unprovoked? Are you FREAKIN’ kidding me?
Let me make this crystal clear. Bush has sold gay Americans down the river. He’s declared himself, in no uncertain terms, our enemy. If the nation’s divided on the gay issue, it’s Bush’s fault. Period.
Redstate’s take is idiotic.
That’s a bit too strong (I blogged pre-coffee). It’s actually right in places, but this part of the argument is mistaken.
Von, that doesn’t make much sense – the African-American bit I mean. Kerry actually needs to play for their vote? Isn’t that sort of sewn up?
And who do the unions traditionally go for?
W/r/t African Americans, the issue is turnout — not who they break for.
Organized labor tends used to be a core Democratic constuency — until Reagan. Then they became a Democratic-leaning swing constituency (these are the so-called “Reagan Democrats”): Socially conservative, fiscally liberal.
Quick question about British politics: The last time I was in your green and pleasant land for a long enough stay to follow an election (7 mos.), the Liberal Democrats seemed to be middle-of-the-roaders. (I should note that, at the time, the Liberal Democrats were part of the SDP/Liberal Alliance. I realize I may be dating myself, here.) Now, they appear to be to the left of Labour. Is that because of Blair’s “new” Labour policies and the war, or did I just miss it the first time around?
von
Aaargh. Need more coffee. Change that second paragraph to:
Organized labor used to be a core Democratic constuency — until Reagan. Then it became a Democratic-leaning swing constituency (these are the so-called “Reagan Democrats”): Socially conservative, fiscally liberal.
W/r/t African Americans, the issue is turnout — not who they break for.
Come on, von! You’re telling me that, by subtly informing blacks that “OMG Dick Cheney’s daughter has teh gay!” they’re going to spur a bigger number of gay-hating black voters to turn out the vote . . .
. . . when this plan for LGBT rights is right there on the Kerry campaign site? What’s the deal here? “Sure, we’re going to protect gay & lesbian civil rights, but Dick Cheney has a GAY DAUGHTER!!”
This argument is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. I can’t believe it’s getting any traction whatsoever with people who should know better.
Well, that definitely helps to explain your take. However, I didn’t read it that way at all …
That’s fair. I didn’t do a very good job of explaining it the first time around, and I’ll certainly allow that how the comment struck me ain’t how it struck everyone.
I’m wondering why, Von, you say the Libdems seem to be to the left of labour. I don’t think that the current stew of issues bubbling over there is conducive to a binary left/right analysis. I would agree that there are points where they are to the left, but other points where they are more firmly centrist.
One more thought…a Sullivan reader writes:
I’m wondering why, Von, you say the Libdems seem to be to the left of labour.
I think it’s purely by comparison to the position taken by the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 80s — which, IIRC, aggressively positioned itself as the centrists in the race. (And I agree that it’s difficult to break down any set of political parties into binary code.)
von: “Mary Cheney is being used to play to a homophobic audience. It ain’t right.”
I now understand your take on it, and if I agreed with it I would not have asked ‘what’s the big deal?’ above. But I don’t. I mean, look at the remarks in context:
A covert appeal to homophobes would not, I think, read like that. It would not go out of its way to say: we should not discriminate. We are all God’s children. In this country, we all deserve respect. And it would not have dwelt on these points. It would have included some reference to tolerance, but its main thrust would have been, say, the fact that gays should not get ‘special privileges’, or the need to ‘protect’ the institution of marriage, or something.
In what Kerry said, the claim that marriage is between a man and a woman is the cursory, ‘must be included’ (for some reason, I don’t see why) thing, while the need to respect gay people and treat them with dignity is the main point. — So even if it wasn’t abundantly clear which party homophobes should feel more comfortable in, this would have been a really bad way to attract them.
Come on, von! You’re telling me that, by subtly informing blacks that “OMG Dick Cheney’s daughter has teh gay!” they’re going to spur a bigger number of gay-hating black voters to turn out the vote
No. The fear would be that a certain number of African Americans might become stay home as a result of Kerry’s position on social issues. If Bush is portrayed as “equally bad,” however, it takes the issue out of the race.
hilzoy said what I was trying to say better than I said it. Kerry/Edwards haven’t exactly hidden the fact that they’re the gay-friendly candidates in this election, so I don’t see how “Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay” is supposed to suddenly motivate homophobic black and union voters who were otherwise going to stay home.
von, you’re quite right about a shift in British Politics. The Lib Dems are now pretty much to the Left of New Labour – elements of the Labour Party that detest New Labour are still to the Left of the Lib Dems. It has been the New Labour policies that caused the shift, broadly. In many ways they’re Conservative-lite. Certainly a little to the right of centre, with the interest in privatisation.
Thanks von. I wonder if the repositioning of the LibDems is based on the fact that Blair has moved Labour to the center rather than the LibDems doing any movement on their own. I also think that Ashdown was a much more centrist type (one memorable article noted because of his service in the Special Boat Service (a forerunner of the SAS) he was trained to kill people with his bare hands, which was a skill that the writer wished he would put to better use in parliament) than Kennedy.
But if there has been movement, I wonder if the electoral reforms have had an effect on the location of the LibDems. I wouold suggest that proportional representation allows for more splinter left groups to operate, so the LibDems can move to the left and win votes, because the groups with ideas that are too far out of the mainstream can form their own parties and not cause problems for a more left leaning group.
However, a person with some actual knowledge of the UK political scene is welcome to pull any feet that I’ve happened to put in my mouth…
Phil —
Take a look at my “equally bad” (sic) comment, which is right above yours. The goal is not to make Kerry and Edwards to appear less gay friendly; it is to make Bush and Cheney appear more.
liberal japonicus – actually I think SAS was formed slightly before SBS.
Lib Dems would benefit from proportional representation; mind you, they’re doing very well without right now. No doubt down to Iraq to whatever degree, but all three main parties over here in the UK are polling close to each other.
So, if I understand you correctly, Kerry was not trying to appeal to Bush’s homophobic base; it was, instead, trying to make it more difficult for Bush to appeal to that part of his base which is homophobic by making it clear that Bush’s VP has no personal problem with gays.
This is illegitimate? I’d think any tactic that makes it more difficult for either side to use homophobic appeals to bigoted voters would be a good thing.
Thanks, James and LJ.
I’d think any tactic that makes it more difficult for either side to use homophobic appeals to bigoted voters would be a good thing.
There are ends, and there are means. And the means matter.
I guess I’m just having a really, really hard time conceiving of some significant number of black or union voters who were just going to stay home and not vote until they found out that, whatever the Kerry ’04 position on gays, BC’04 is actually related to one, and they just can’t have someone that gay friendly in office. (This also assumes that these same people were in comas during the entire FMA dustup.) How many of these voters can there possibly be? 100? 1,000?
When Dukakis was asked what he would do if Kitty was murdered regarding the death penalty, it was considered a decisive and probing question. Where was the outrage that someone brought up a potential first lady as a murder victim? Methinks the Republicans are protesting way too much.
…although it was the moderator who brought up that question, wasn’t it, Wilfred? Which isn’t quite the same as the candidate bringing up the individual.
Still disagree this was an appeal to homophobes to vote Kerry, mind you…
Apart from whether the outrage is justified, does anyone have a sense of whether it’s been effective? Will this one little reference cost Kerry the post-debate-spin contest the same way that the “When Cheney met Edwards” issue cost Cheney?
So wait a minute: you’re saying that Kerry invoking Mary Cheney’s sexuality was a covert dis-appeal to homophobes in the Democratic base; but the fact that a) she’s open about it, b) this was a cornerstone of her employment with Coors, c) she’s a member of the election team (VP of Operations, if memory serves), d) Dick and Lynne Cheney have themselves mentioned her sexuality during the campaign,* none of these mitigate against that? And that somehow African-Americans and union workers are so hardcore in their homophobia that the only thing holding them back was, as Edward said, “fear of teh gay”?
I’m sorry, but that strikes me as complete bollocks. Put it this way: if Kerry were genuinely capable of the super-Machiavellian subtlety that you’re ascribing to him — to somehow appeal to the hardcore homophobes in the Democratic base that it’s safe to vote for him because Bush’s homophobia isn’t as homophobic as all that in the middle of a speech that, under any reasonable parsing, is arguing love and tolerance towards homosexuals — Bush would’ve been toast months ago.
Now, if you’d said that that was a covert dis-appeal to the heavily homophobic constituents in Bush’s base for whom that would be a deciding issue, that I would agree with. [Hence my earlier query.] And good riddance to’em.
* I agree that Edwards’ hammering of Cheney’s GAY DAUGHTER!! was tacky, but since I didn’t see the VP debate I can’t say whether I felt it was mitigated in context.
“There are ends, and there are means. And the means matter.”
von-
If you agree that the end is legitimate, what’s wrong with the means? Kerry made a polite reference to a public fact: Mary Chaney’s sexuality was the basis of her employment at Coors and has been spontaneously raised by her father in public — how is that out of bounds?
I could comprehend an argument that Kerry was trying to do something wrong through a superficially unobjectionable means, but it appears that even the Machiavellian reading of his comment is an attempt to shut down homophobia as an issue rather than to appeal to it, a commendable end. Given that the end is commendable (and of course it’s also politically advantageous for Kerry — homophobia might be a winning issue for Bush but in today’s climate it isn’t going to be a winning issue for any Democrat nationally), what could you possibly object to about the means?
Von, sincerely, in what sense are you getting that from the text of the statement. In what way is that theory not made up from whole cloth? Sure, it might be so, but it seems to be unfalsifiable and wouldn’t get by Mr. Occam.
Late to the thread, but I agree with those who believe Kerry/Edwards were complimenting Cheney’s daughter and her parents.
However, if Kerry/Edwards were calculating in a “dirty” political way to out homophobia among GOP constituents, I say out away. If traditionally Democratic Party constituents, who may be homophobic as well, are outed too and decide to vote for Bush/Cheney, I say, good, go stand over there where I can keep an eye on you.
Additionally, Redstate and Tacitus joint efforts to make a “martyr” out of the Cheneys is risible.
Especially after referring to Max Cleland derisively as a “martyr” in recent weeks and months. Funny how the Republican Party was kind enough to hoist Cleland up on the cross, hammer that one nail in to its only available spot, and then step back into the crowd to hurl “martyr” charges at him.
I have so much trouble just keeping up with my role models.
I think part of what’s going is this: some people, Dems included, feel that candidates are not supposed to score political points off the family members of their opponents.
Referring to Mary (or perhaps we should call her Voldemort) made the point “personal,” and that, by definition, is seen to be out of bounds.
And I’ve heard this argument too: John Kerry doesn’t actually know how Mary Cheney feels; therefore he shouldn’t speculate about what she would say.
I don’t really buy these arguments, but I keep hearing them from those who felt “queasy” when Kerry invoked She-who-must-not-be-named.
Hrm. I wrote my 11:43am comment in haste and, on reflection, it appears to have come off far more stridently than I’d intended. My apologies.
abf: I think part of what’s going is this: some people, Dems included, feel that candidates are not supposed to score political points off the family members of their opponents.
And yet, as far as I can see the most strident attackers of Kerry for his polite reference to a publicly-known fact were also ardent defenders of the 2000 push poll question: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”
So, for them, claiming that they’re against scoring political points off the family members of their opponents is straightforwardly hypocritical – they certainly weren’t against it four years ago.
If it’s improper to score political points off the family members of your opponents, and a polite and respectful reference to a publicly known fact about a family member qualifies as “point scoring”, then what are we to make of Kerry’s comments to Bush about his daughters in the first debate? Why weren’t the Redstaters up in arms?
Von, sincerely, in what sense are you getting that from the text of the statement.
It’s the mention that matters. The text is completely unobjectionable — and, in a good world, it should not be objectionable to mention the sexual orientation of a candidate’s daughter. But my point all along is that we don’t likve in that good world, Kerry knows it, and his comment was intended to take advantage of such.
Kerry’s comment was not about taking advantage Von. He was merely stating fact. If his own daughter were gay he would have spoken of her but since the VP’s daughter is gay and was mentioned in the last debate it seemed like a good way to explain. What it most highlights is the Republican habit of denial. Deny everything remotely ‘unpleasant’ i.e. not advantageous. Deny or refuse to discuss Laura’s hit and run (imagine if it were Hilary who did this!), W’s drug use and likely promiscuity (know any addicts who hit bottom, stay out all night with a wife and 2 daughters at home and never strayed?), W’s ‘missing’ time in the National Guard, Bush and Cheney’s DUI’s, yet they are the first group to point fingers at others lives, turning Max Clelland into a liar, John McCain into an emotionally unstable father of an interracial love-child with a pill-popping wife and John Kerry into a lying veteran where his medals are concerned. The Rovian chant: Deny our stuff while throwing same at the opponents. The Party of Values- hardly.
It reminds me of a film where a little brat pulls all sorts of pranks on others while laughing gleefully but when he gets his comeuppance he wails like a baby.
But my point all along is that we don’t likve in that good world, Kerry knows it, and his comment was intended to take advantage of such.
How?
I agree with Anarch: “Put it this way: if Kerry were genuinely capable of the super-Machiavellian subtlety that you’re ascribing to him — to somehow appeal to the hardcore homophobes in the Democratic base that it’s safe to vote for him because Bush’s homophobia isn’t as homophobic as all that in the middle of a speech that, under any reasonable parsing, is arguing love and tolerance towards homosexuals — Bush would’ve been toast months ago.”
If the Cheney’s are so outraged at Kerry, where was their outrage recently when Alan Keyes said Mary Cheney practiced ‘selfish hedonism’ and called her a sinner?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/
Guess you just have to be a sympathetic Democrat to get their bile up.
And let’s not forget this delightful letter from Marilyn Musgrave:
But my point all along is that we don’t likve in that good world, Kerry knows it, and his comment was intended to take advantage of such.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for the contention that Kerry’s remarks were aimed in the manner of which you spoke? I’m not looking for conclusive evidence, mind, just something that grounds this argument in some kind of substance.
[Like I said, I’d completely agree that Kerry was throwing a subtle jab at Bush’s base to drive their turnout down; I can’t for the life of me see how those remarks were intended to drive Kerry’s turnout up.]