Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Mary Cheney Is A Lesbian For A Living
She's what I call "professionally gay" -- employed as the gay and lesbian liason for Coors. In other words, her very job description centers around being out of the closet -- in the most public way. Frank Rich asks the right question:

So you have to wonder what motivated the Bush-Cheney brigade to go ballistic over Mr. Kerry's "outing" of Mary Cheney after it had ignored not just John Edwards's previous "outing" but also the earlier "outings" by Bush campaign allies like the Concerned Women for America and the Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Unlike the Democrats, who spoke respectfully of gay sexual orientation, these right-wing activists trashed the vice president's daughter for sowing anti-family values. But as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, even when Mr. Keyes attacked Mary Cheney in August for practicing "selfish hedonism," the same Mrs. Cheney, who, "speaking as a mom," called Mr. Kerry "not a good man," spoke not at all.

To understand what strange game is playing out here, you must go back to the equally close 2000 election. In the campaign postmortems, Karl Rove famously attributed his candidate's shortfall in the popular vote to four million "fundamentalists and evangelicals" in the Republican base who didn't turn up on Election Day. A common theory among Bush operatives had it that these no-shows had been alienated by the pre-election revelation of Mr. Bush's arrest for drunk driving years earlier.

The current Bush-Cheney campaign clearly believes that for these voters, Mary Cheney's sexuality could be a last-minute turnoff equivalent to Mr. Bush's D.U.I. history. When Rich Lowry of National Review said on Fox that "millions and millions of people" were not aware that Mary Cheney was gay until Mr. Kerry brought it up, it was clear just which four million he was talking about. Mr. Kerry, his critics all speculate, was deliberately seeking to depress voter turnout among Mr. Rove's M.I.A. religious conservatives by broadcasting Mary Cheney's sexuality to them for the first time.

What was most telling for me, in Lynne Cheney's claws-bared response to Kerry's remark, was the fact that she clearly thinks being gay is something to be ashamed of -- some dirty secret about her he was (supposedly) letting out of the bag. Or, is it simply that she's a sleazy political operator, doing her part to help Karl Rove bring in the fundamentalist fruitcake vote? Or both?

Posted by aalkon at October 21, 2004 9:50 AM

Comments

> She's what I call "professionally gay" --
> employed as the gay and lesbian liason for
> Coors.

How many times in history have people been employed largely because they seem so stinkin' heterosexual? How many times has a comforting heterosexual demeanor been the ticket to success? I'm not saying the reverse effect is desirable, but it's a little bit early to get upset about it. She's not Alan Bakke.

Pilfering from my own comments elsewhere:
I'm a boy and I like girls and it's no secret, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT MY SEXUALITY DISCUSSED IN NATIONAL MEDIA.

Lynne Cheney was rightly busted a few years ago for pimping the DonnaReed-itude of daughter Elizabeth's family life, and then being pissy when Cokie "Chromakey" Roberts or someone mentioned daughter Mary.

But lefties or gays who think they can continue to speak about this woman's most personal matters in the coarsest, most public terms are mistaken. Each of us alone should decide when our dearest feelings are a matter for public discussion. Individuals should decide how much of their deepest hearts are a at issue in public policy.

Posted by: Cridland at October 21, 2004 9:36 AM

COngrats to boyfriend/sysop: I accidently double clicked the post button, and it politely declined to make a fool of me.

Posted by: Cridland at October 21, 2004 9:38 AM

> Cridland: I accidently double clicked the post
> button, and it politely declined to make a fool
> of me.

You sure about that? It still let your post go through.

(Sorry, don't mean to step on your dearest feelings -- but what's so coarse about the word "lesbian?" And what the hell do you have against Chromakey?)

Posted by: Frank at October 21, 2004 11:53 AM

"How many times in history have people been employed largely because they seem so stinkin' heterosexual?"

I dunno, every Playboy Centerfold ever?

Anyway, what's interesting about the last-minute fundamentalist strategy is the new story about how White House spokespeople are essentially calling Pat Robertson a liar over his account of a pre-war conversation with Bush.

When it comes to Bush Vs. Robertson, I'm actually inclined to believe Bush. But it ain't good for the base.

Posted by: LYT at October 21, 2004 1:18 PM

Regarding the Pat Robertson conversation, I bet Bush was just trying to sell him on the war also, and I would not be in any way suprised if he said there would be no casualties. These people are led by their expectance of miracles.

It makes no sense that Robertson would make these allegations unless they were true- what would he Robertson) gain for his cause?

I never thought of the Bunnies as being stinkin heterosexuals. They always look so fresh...

Posted by: eric the bunny sniffer at October 21, 2004 2:30 PM

LYT, I think you see my point. Heterosexuality has been a part of success for a long time. If the door has swung the other way for a brief moment, there's no reason to get all pissy about it. I guess her name did more to get her the gig than her preference did.

I got nothin' against chromakey, I made a living with it for many years. I got things against Cokie Roberts... Even when she gets it right, as she did that day with Lynne Cheney four years ago.

The "coarse" part is the part is the part where something so personal is kicked into the most public imaginable discussion by a fuckwit like Kerry. That Daughter Cheney might have shared the nature of her feelings at any number of times in the past is her own fuckin' beeswax. Kerry's still a shitheel for smirking about it, *HOWEVER* it plays politically.

Lefties don't want to help people pursue their interests, they want to ASSIGN those interests. They want blacks to have this need and that, with this or that vote available by deduction. Same with gays, same with everyone. Sexuality is not exempt from their presumption that everything is mechanistic, and therefore fixable by policy. In this part of life especially, they are HIDEOUSLY, WRETCHEDLY mistaken. Sullivan could explain this to you; if not, Paglia certainly would.

By the way, if Kerry can play the kid's sexuality as he sees fit, is it OK to make fun of him for marrying for money? Twice? He's by far the richest guy who ever ran for the office. Can we remember this?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 21, 2004 5:58 PM

Is it better to think prejudice based on sexual orientation is fixable by policy, or that sexual orientation itself is fixable by policy, as many on the right believe?

I vote for the former if I must choose (and the two-party system pretty well ensures that I must). Even Sullivan and Paglia seem inclined to do likewise this election, from what I'm reading.

And yes, it's totally OK to make fun of Kerry for being rich, or marrying rich, or anything else. Indeed, satire's principal targets should always be the rich and powerful.

Posted by: LYT at October 21, 2004 6:46 PM

> ...as many on the right believe?

Many on the left believe we should be living in geodesic domes made of mud in the desert, eating vegetarian, and performing free abortions for girls in the hogh school nurses' office. And maybe whistling Yanni tunes for an hour each dawn. Is that typical of the left? Is that who Republicans are voting against?

Per the recent Reason piece, Paglia truly seems worried about hurting Europe's feelings. But I doubt she or Sullivan are eager to let people tell them how to vote because they're gay.

Posted by: Cridland at October 21, 2004 7:09 PM

"Many on the left believe we should be living in geodesic domes made of mud in the desert, eating vegetarian, and performing free abortions for girls in the hogh school nurses' office. And maybe whistling Yanni tunes for an hour each dawn. Is that typical of the left? Is that who Republicans are voting against?"

Crid, do you ever speak in a literal sense, or is everything hyperbole with you?

Posted by: Patrick the Advice Guru at October 23, 2004 1:53 PM

"Sullivan could explain this to you; if not, Paglia certainly would."

Crid -- What's-her-name can't explain anything, because she's a dumb wop dyke from Filthadelphia. She makes me so ashamed of being a homo, I have to go out and bury my face between the buttocks of the first streetwalker I see -- just to escape the pain, the pain, THE PAIN! Lena

Posted by: Lena in love (and on acid) at October 27, 2004 10:05 PM