Looks at the Mary Cheney thing. I think I'm tentatively with Mort Kondrake on this thing--I think Senators Kerry and Edwards were trying to remind the far religious right that Vice President Cheney had a gay daughter. Whatever the case, children of candidates should be off-limits. I don't care if they are adults. I don't care if they are participating in the campaign.
And, of course, there is the evidence thing. How on earth does John Kerry know how Mary Cheney feels about being Mary Cheney? Come on Andrew Sullivan, explain to me how John Kerry saying "I think if you talk to Mary Cheney she will tell you x about being a lesbian" is doing anything but stereotyping. It would be like George Bush saying in response to the question about affirmative action, "I think if you talk to Barack Obama he will tell you x about being an African-American." Even if we assume, wrongly, that Mary Cheney speaks for all lesbians or Barack Obama speaks for all African-Americans, we absolutely cannot assume what they are going to say.
4 comments:
Tom -- You are wrong on this one on so many levels. First, children of candidates who are themselves public figures and who are running the VP's re-election campaign are of course not "off limits." Furthermore, off limits to what? Kerry did not attack or criticize Cheney unless the belief is that being gay is a bad thing. If you do not think it is a bad thing, then how can sayinga simple statement of fact be considered a bad thing? Both candidates had earlier praised each others families -- was that off limits?
Your rhetorical questions to Sullivan are red herrings.absolutely irrelevant. The point is not what mary cheney might be thinking (though it is fascinating that she has not spoken -- a hint here -- since the easiest thing for het to do would be to get up and criticize kerry, and since she has not done so, i think we have some hint how she feels.)
I love you guys -- sitting there backing a candidate who wants to write bigotry into the Constitution and pretending that it is Kerry who is off base here. You get to have oit both ways -- you get to support bigotry and claim that you are not. I can see yopu guys in 1964, opposing the Civil Rights Act and then being indignant if someone pointed out that Strom Thurmond's daughter 9unacknowledged then, batch) would be effected by their opposition. Unbelievable.
dc
I do not know how to respond in a manner that won't invite a stream of partisan vituperation. But let me repeat that all children of candidates should be off-limits to anything beyond reserved comments about how wonderful they are. Period. It's about civility, which conservatives--me conservative, all conservatives same caveman hate monger--purport to care about.
As far as the rest goes, I didn't argue anything you said I argued, and you did not deal with the substance of what I said, ie: John Kerry doesn't have the first clue what Mary Cheney thinks about being Mary Cheney (her silence literally doesn't mean anything).
look -- my name's john and I have neither time nor inclination to log in to this site, so feel free to call me a coward, I probably won't be reading -- but this must be said: You liken John Kerry's line "I think if you talk to Mary Cheney she will tell you x about being a lesbian" to Bush saying the samething about Barack Obama regarding African Americans. Here's why that comment is a fallacy, at best: 1) Barack Obama is not running John Edwards Campaign and, most importantly 2) John Kerry is not interested in changing the constitution to hinder Barack Obama's rights. Why can't he mention Mary Cheney's lesbianism in a debate -- is it something to be ashamed of, my compassionate friends? Of course not - but it is important to highlight the administrations hypocrisy -- "yeah, you can work for us, but don't expect the same rights as everybody else."
In short, if I believed in hell, Bush could go there, and pack only a sweater.
My argument about the Kerry statement is not complex, but it has two parts: 1. It is distasteful to bring your opponent's children into political rhetoric except in the most bland positive way "My opponent is a great parent. I've been really impressed by the maturity and blah blah of his/her kids." 2. For those who are having trouble keeping up, my Obama analogy was to point out the fallacy of John Kerry claiming to know how any group collectively feels about a pretty controversial issue, and more importantly how the individual Mary Cheney feels about that issue.
I don't particularly want to argue out the debate right now, but I do have an honest question for proponents of gay marriage: what is the legal justification for not allowing polygamy? I'm being serious--as far as I can tell, all of the justifications in support of gay marriage are exactly the same as the justifications a polygamist could make in support of polygamy. If you are opposed to polygamy, why? Aren't we restricting polygamists' rights (especially because polygamy has often traditionally been a part of some religious practices)? Do we get to call you bigots against polygamists?
Maybe most of us just honest folks who are trying to figure out where we as a society stand on these tricky issues. The breathless declarations of rights and justice make for good copy, but I would rather we seriously discuss the issue of how we define marriage. Most people want to draw a line somewhere, so let's figure out where instead of name calling for political effect.
Post a Comment