Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

One of my readers writes in:

Frankly, I don't get it.

Why is it an insult or something tawdry for Kerry to refer to Mary Cheney in the debate? It wasn't tawdry for Edwards to do so. It wasn't tawdry for Dick Cheney to speak of it. It wasn't tawdry for Kerry to refer to Christopher Reeves in the second debate.

It wasn't tawdry for Kerry to refer to Teresa's status as an immigrant in various speeches.

Frankly, the only reason why it would be considered tawdry is if being gay is so tawdry and nasty and dirty that one shouldn't speak of it (yet others somehow managed to avoid the tawdriness before).

Thus the response is either false indignation or a sign that they feel shame that she is a lesbian. Which one is it?

To quote John McEnroe, "You can NOT be serious!"

Bob Schieffer's question (which I wasn't really a fan of) was about whether the candidates felt homosexuality is a choice or a way that people are born. Let's go to the transcript:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues. But let's shift to some other questions here. 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?

KERRY: 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.

Now let's go back to the Vice Presidential debate.

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?

Granted, Ifill made the reference to "your family's experience." But look closely at Cheney's answer:

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.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of — the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.

And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

What words are missing from this answer? "Mary." "Family." "Daughter." In fact, the phrase, "It's really no one else's business" does come up. Dick Cheney doesn’t mention his daughter. He’s not campaigning on it, he’s not using her as a political prop, he doesn’t cite his family experience. Now let’s look at John Edwards’ response:

EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.

Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not.We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter.

Where the hell did that come from? The question was about Vice President Cheney’s remarks on the subject in the past and the administration’s position. There was an oblique reference to his “family’s experience.” Why did John Edwards treat this as an excuse to assess whether the Vice President loves his daughters? Just who does John Edwards think he is to think he’s got the right to judge the Vice President as a father?

Both Kerry and Edwards felt a need to bring up Mary Cheney's lifestyle, in their very first words about the topic of gay marriage. You think that's cooncidence?

If you thought it was tasteless and cruel for some Republicans, as well as Saturday Night Live, to make fun of Chelsea Clinton, I cannot understand how you can think it's okay for Edwards and Kerry to consistently drag Mary Cheney into this debate in order to score political points.

Unless you think family members are fair game in politics. And if you do, well... then, in my humble opinion, you're a repugnant human being.

UPDATE: Kerry Spot reader Patrick observes another important exchange in the veep debate:

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.

IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.

Note - Cheney did not bring up his daughter and did not want to politicize her or make her an issue. So yes he thanked Edwards, but, as I remember it, did not look pleased and more importantly was uncomfortable with bringing his daughter into the campaign rhetoric and to Ifill's surprise, wanted to drop the subject.

Patrick's right. The claim that Cheney brought his daughter into this is a lie and a lame excuse as well.

[Posted 10/14 09:34 PM]