Damning With Faint Praise

Andrew Sullivan, today:

I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this.

Agreed. We wouldn't argue that Mary Cheney has been outed, or that her privacy as been invaded.

Sullivan continued:

Does this makes [sic] Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good. It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better.

Sullivan implicitly endorses an effort to bait and agitate what he considers to be a homophobic Republican base by drawing attention to Mary Cheney's sexuality.

In doing so, Sullivan finds himself in poor company. Like those who would defend spreading rumors of Sen. John McCain's "black baby" in 2000 (McCain adopted a Bangladeshi born child), Sullivan, Atrios, Joshua Marshall and others are complicit, through either their incredible naivete or transparent intellectual dishonesty, in furthering the Kerry/Edwards cynical campaign strategy of recruiting bigots to vote against their rival.

The cynical nature of the strategy is confirmed by Kerry/Edwards campaign manger Mary Beth Cahill's characterization of Mary Cheney's sexuality in crass political terms: "fair game" (VIDEO)

If Andrew Sullivan doesn't believe that name dropping in the middle of a debate is in any way politically motivated, then he's gullible.

If that sounds out of line, imagine Andrew Sullivan, Atrios, and Josh Marshall sitting around watching this clip from the Daily Show and saying, "Huh? I don't get it?"



And if Sullivan is prepared to defend gay-baiting the homophobic vote as a legitimate political tactic, then he's a fraud and should be exposed as such. Let's hope he's only gullible.

UPDATE An anonymous commenter below reminds us that there are some points not made in the above post that were later made in an email we sent to Andrew Sullivan.

For example, we agree that it is not a "low blow" to mention that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. The issue here is motive; that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is using her sexuality in an effort to turn out the bigot vote. Interpreting their name dropping as a kind gesture is wrong, and totally naive.

The video clip of Jon Stewart posted above is meant to back up our claim that it is obvious, to the point of mockery, that Mary Cheney's name has been inserted into these debates in a disingenuous fashion.

If the letter to Andrew seems less harsh, that's because it is. In the time between our post and the subsequent email, Andrew had updated his blog with a new post that convinced us that he was responding to a different line of argument, one which we agree is invalid.

Published below is an email we sent to Andrew earlier tonight...

From: Recycler
Subject: Hurts me more than it hurts you
To: Andrew Sullivan

I think you're wrong on this one, Andrew. I've put together a post responding to some of what you've written today on the Mary Cheney issue. I hope you'll read it, and view the Jon Stewart Daily Show clip that is embedded in the post.

If Stewart sees this for what it is, I don't see why you can't.

I can't help that you're getting emails making what I believe are invalid assertions like, "Kerry outed Mary Cheney." But there is a valid and serious issue here of gay-baiting by the Kerry/Edwards campaign in an effort to recruit bigots to vote against the Bush/Cheney ticket by stroking their homophobic reactions.

Again, I agree with you that it not shameful to talk about someone as being gay. I agree that it is a silly argument to put forward, and I join you in dismissing that line of argument.

I do not think it is shameful to be of Bangladeshi descent, either. Yet some people decided to use McCain's adopted child's race to fan the flames of racism, and turn voters against him. I have a hard time believing that you are unable of seeing the same sort of political maneuvering in the overtly orchestrated name droppings by both Kerry and Edwards during the debates. It is hard for me to believe that you would not recognize EVERYTHING in those debates as being calculated ahead of time at some level.

I believe that you have roundly and totally rebutted the silly lines of argument. However, I do not see those arguments as representing the intellectual basis for concern over the use of Mary Cheney's sexuality as a political tool during the debates.

And regardless of your feelings on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the ends do not justify the means. Encouraging bigots and homophobes to become politically active is at best disingenuous, and could very accurately be described as homophobia in and of itself.

Again, I would appreciate it if you would read my post, and treat the argument as seriously as you have the weak and invalid points made by some of your readership.

Take care,