I continue to scratch my head in puzzlement over the controversy over Kerry's innocuous comment about Mary Cheney. (For good commentary on this to date, see Salon's piece by Dave Cullen, or Andrew Sullivan's blog posting.)
Now William Safire is in there firing off more indiscriminate barrages in this desperate campaign maneuver to turn a simple debate point into some sort of mega-gaffe. Safire admits that Mary Cheney's sexuality is no secret but maintains that "only political junkies knew that a member of the Cheney family serving on the campaign staff was homosexual."
That's beyond absurd. One does not need to be a "political junkie" to be aware of the vice presidential daughter's preferences unless one defines "political junkie" as "someone who pays a little attention to the news." Here's Time's take: "Her being gay has long been public knowledge. It is part of almost every media profile of the Cheney family, and has sometimes defined her professional life: she was the Coors Brewing Co.'s liaison to the gay community from 1994 to 2000." Just a week before the final presidential debate, Cheney himself had thanked Edwards after Edwards mentioned her homosexuality in the vice-presidential debate. There were frequent mentions of Mary Cheney in the 2000 campaign and in the years since, pretty much any time the Bush administration's conservative stance on gay rights came up.
The reason Mary Cheney gets mentioned a lot is probably the same reason Kerry mentioned her during the debate: It's a reminder that, when the Bush administration sets out to deny homosexuals basic rights, some of the people whose rights they are denying are their own close kin. That's relevant by any standard -- particularly when the relative in question is someone in a political role (Mary Cheney, after all, is one of her father's campaign managers).
Now, there are people who just don't like this fact being mentioned. Gary Bauer ludicrously whined that Kerry's comment was an "attempt to suppress a certain segment of Christian votes." Notice the hysterical language: presenting a simple, undisputed public fact to the electorate is tantamount to "suppressing" votes. Giving people a reason not to vote for the other guy is the equivalent of tearing up voter registrations.
Safire calls Kerry's comment "the lowest blow" and complains that its "sleazy" purpose was "to drive a wedge between the Republican running mates. President Bush supports a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman; Cheney has long been on record favoring state option, but always adds that the president sets administration policy."
Safire is an avowed libertarian who's presumably committed to putting the most information into voters' hands, but look at how he slips into a realm of outright anti-democratic rhetoric here: "Yes," he in effect says, "what Kerry said about Mary Cheney is true. Yes, it is public. But for Kerry to spread that public fact to more voters is 'sleazy' because it highlights an instance where the administration is either divided or hypocritical or both."
I guess we're not allowed to do that any more. How dare the Democratic candidate try to sway voters! Bush and his surrogates show no reluctance to cobble together shadowy 30-year-old lies that they believe make their opponent look bad; but when Kerry mentions a simple fact that happens to be a little inconvenient for the president, that shows Bush up as someone whose policies don't match the people around him, it's a sleazy gaffe.
Life in "the reality-based community" -- it's just getting harder and harder!
|
