The Debate Over Mary Cheney

Okay, I admit it.

The story of the salacious phone calls that Bill O'Reilly did or didn't make is a tad more interesting than the Kerry/Bush post-debate analysis.

With both O'Reilly and his accuser hitting the morning-show circuit yesterday, and extremely aggressive lawyers on both sides, it's no wonder the Daily News banner headline was "O'REALLY!"

That's why I spent yesterday trying to untangle the case, along with the intricacies of sexual harassment law, as well as talking to the Fox News host. And you can read my report here.

But after careful reflection, I've decided that the presidential election is probably more important to the future of our country. (The campaign plays a minor role in the producer's suit and O'Reilly's suit, as you'll see.) Though I think I know which one will get more hits.

All right, step into my no-spin zone.

After each debate, the campaigns--and the press--have found some backstory to obsess on. Following the Miami debate, it was Bush's scowling and fidgeting. After Cleveland, it was Cheney claiming never to have met Edwards. After St. Louis, it was whether Bush had made a sufficient comeback. And after Phoenix, the GOP is trying to make an issue of Kerry bringing up the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

This was hardly a state secret. She works for the campaign as a gay liaison, and the veep has talked about having a gay family member. But it was still a little jarring to hear Kerry say it in response to a question about whether homosexuality is innate.

The New York Times was on to this early because members of its Iowa focus group used words like "very unfair" and "low blow."

I don't buy the notion that Kerry was trying to appeal to religious conservatives who are uncomfortable with gayness. Those folks aren't going to vote for him anyway. What he did appear to be doing was to use Mary Cheney as a way of reminding viewers of the administration's alleged hypocrisy on the issue--embracing Mary, who puts a face on the gay community, and yet trying to change the Constitution so she can never marry a partner.

Was this a low blow? Dick Cheney thinks so: "You saw a man who will say and do anything in order to get elected. And I am not speaking just as a father here, though I am a pretty angry father, but as a citizen." Lynne Cheney expressed her outrage too.

The Democratic talking point is that the Repubs are trying to distract the country from noticing that the polls say Kerry won Wednesday's debate, which would give him a clean sweep. But Kerry does seem to have created an unnecessary distraction for himself by bringing an opponent's daughter into the debate.

"It was a brief mention, a few seconds in Wednesday night's 90-minute presidential debate," says the Boston Globe. "But Senator John F. Kerry's reference to Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, who is a lesbian, touched off a campaign-trail tempest yesterday...

"Almost immediately, Republicans expressed outrage at Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney. Some accused Kerry of raising her name in an effort to sway voters who might be put off by homosexuality, and criticized a statement by Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill on Fox News that the vice president's daughter is 'fair game.'. . . .

"The Democrats pushed back. Yesterday morning, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, told ABC News Radio that Lynne Cheney's response had made her 'really sad.' 'It indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences that I'm certain makes her daughter uncomfortable,' Elizabeth Edwards said."

The Chicago Tribune: "On a day when he should have been basking in a post-debate glow, Sen. John Kerry was defending himself Thursday for mentioning that the vice president's daughter is a lesbian."

The New York Post, which doesn't need much prodding to run an anti-Kerry headline, has this banner: "NO SHAME."

InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds: "I think it was a major blunder by Kerry -- especially as his position on gay marriage is the same as the president's."

He may be right on the first part, but Kerry opposes the constitutional amendment Bush is pushing..

"UPDATE: Reader Keith Rempel gets at the heart of what's wrong here, and articulates what I couldn't: 'Kerry was using Cheney's daughter to harm her father. How many kids want to be used to harm their parents? Did anyone ask her if she wants to have her sexual practices used in the campaign?'"

Salon's Dave Cullen calls actual gay people and makes the opposite argument:

"Much of the gay population is incensed. At the media.

"Let's get one thing straight. It is not an insult to call a proudly public lesbian a lesbian. It's an insult to gasp when someone calls her a lesbian. That's how all the gays I have spoken to the past 24 hours perceived the press response. You're embarrassed for us. And it's infuriating."

Andrew Sullivan agrees, complaining about "the equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction. For people who believe this, of course Kerry was out of line. That's why Rove's base is so outraged. But if you don't believe this, it's no different than, say, if a candidate were to mention another candidate's son in the Marines. Or if, in a debate on immigration, a pro-immigrant candidate mentioned Kerry's immigrant wife.

"You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That's why it's a Rorschach test. Secondly, Mary Cheney isn't private. She ran gay outreach for Coors, for pete's sake. She appears in public with her partner. Her family acknowledges this. She's running her dad's campaign! Whatever else this has to do with - and essentially, it has to do whether you approve of homosexuality or not - privacy is irrelevant. . . .

"In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do."

Remember Nader? The New York Times does:

"With less than three weeks before the election, Ralph Nader is emerging as just the threat that Democrats feared, with a potential to tip the balance in up to nine states where President Bush and Senator John Kerry are running neck and neck.

"Despite a concerted effort by Democrats to derail his independent candidacy, as well as his being struck off the Pennsylvania ballot on Wednesday, Mr. Nader will be on the ballots in more than 30 states.

"Polls show that he could influence the outcomes in nine by drawing support from Mr. Kerry. They are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin."

The Los Angeles Times examines the L-word:

"A key part of President Bush's message for the final weeks of the campaign is starting to sound like a schoolyard taunt: Kerry is a liberal! Kerry is a liberal!. . . .

"Kerry has unflinchingly embraced the liberal pillars of the Great Society and the New Deal, calling for an expansion of Medicaid, keeping Social Security in its current form, and using government to help the middle class and the disadvantaged. He backed higher taxes for the rich, affirmative action and a minimum wage increase. . . .

"A broader look at Kerry's record in the Senate and his promises in campaign speeches reveal a more complex picture. His generally liberal profile is leavened by doses of centrism in his support for free trade, welfare reform, tax cuts for the middle class and a health care plan that is more incremental than many liberals have advocated in the past."

National Review's David Frum disses Kerry without unduly hyping Bush:

"Kerry made the gaffe of a lifetime in his answer to Bob Schieffer's last question. 'Well I guess all three of us are lucky men who married up.' The second those words passed his lips, his face flushed and his face twisted into a self-horrified grimace.

"One thing I've learned from these debates: John Kerry is poised and well-spoken -- but he's not very mentally nimble. Over three debates, the president made a number of mistakes, some of them potentially very damaging. Yet Kerry almost never pounced on them, and when he did do so, his remarks were very obviously prefabricated.

"The president was OK. He knew his numbers, and made his points vigorously, often eloquently. He hit especially effectively on questions about affirmative action, taxes, and religion. But the president's gorge continues to rise whenever Sen. Kerry spoke. For fear of scowling, he would pull his head back and freeze his face in a state of suspended animation, blinking rapidly. When he spoke, he over-relaxed and he often smiled at awkward and unexpected moments.

"His last half hour was better than his first hour -- and his last answer was both moving and funny. 'What did you learn from the women in your life?' 'To listen to them. To stand up straight and not scowl.'

"Kerry was still Senator Stentorian. But he too had mastered his numbers -- and he has a good gimmick of memorizing and rattling off statistics bearing on the state in which the debates have been set.

"On the other hand, what he said was nonsense."

Dan Kennedy is feeling good about his home-state guy:

"The third and final presidential debate was the only one in which John Kerry and George W. Bush came across as stylistic and substantive equals. And yet the immediate post-debate polls show that the public believes Kerry beat Bush decisively Wednesday night. That might mean that viewers genuinely like what Kerry is saying more than they like Bush's pronouncements. Or it might mean that, nearly four years after they didn't actually elect him president, the voters are sick and tired of Bush. Whatever, it's certainly not good news for Republicans. . . .

"This sounds like a country looking for a new president, does it not? If Kerry can keep running an error-free, forward-looking campaign, then he ought to win this thing."

Fred Barnes sees a presidential slam-dunk:

"What do you want to achieve in a presidential debate? You want to hammer home your campaign themes. You want to put your opponent on the defensive. You want to sell yourself personally. And you want to avoid a gaffe or a damaging sound bite. Bush did all four in Wednesday night's third and final nationally televised debate with John Kerry. It was his best debate performance ever and that includes his three debates with Al Gore in 2000. As a result, it may have won Bush a second White House term.

"Let's examine the four goals the president--or Kerry, for that matter--sought to realize in the debate. Themes? Bush's chief message was that Kerry is a liberal on the fringe of the political mainstream. He argued it with humor, saying Kerry is so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy 'the conservative senator from Massachusetts.' And he did it by pointing to issues. He contrasted his tax cutting with Kerry's penchant for raising taxes. He insisted that Kerry's vote against the Gulf War in 1991 meant America could never pass the senator's 'global test' for military intervention. In that war, the United States had the United Nations and most of the world were on its side, but not Kerry, Bush noted.

"And for the first time, Bush made an effective case for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. . . .

"Kerry was forced to play defense as much as Bush was in the first debate two weeks ago. Kerry repeatedly said his health care plan was not a big government program. He all but admitted he has litmus test for prospective Supreme Court justices on abortion--that is, they must be pro-choice. Responding to Bush's charge he'd sponsored only a handful of bills during his 20 years in the Senate that actually began law, Kerry came up with an inaccurate claim to have 'personally written' 56 bills."

And what were some of the 56? "Names a federal building in Pittsfield, Mass., for the late former House member Silvio O. Conte (R) and renames another building the 'Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center,'" says Washington Post columnist Al Kamen. "A Kerry resolution passed easily to honor Milton D. Stewart 'for his years of service in the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,' and another 'honoring Ted Williams and extending the condolences of the Senate on his death.'"

Washngton Monthly's Kevin Drum focuses on Osama, not Mary Cheney:

"One more quick note on Bush's Osama bin Laden gaffe. I think the most interesting question about it is: why? Why did he say it?

"It's inexplicable at first glance. After all, he could have easily ignored Kerry's barb and moved on, or at worst just made a generic statement about how Osama is a top priority and always has been. Why did he specifically deny saying something that the whole world knows he's on videotape saying?

"I suspect the answer lies in the cocoon Bush lives in. Not only has he convinced himself that he never really said that he wasn't concerned about Osama, but he has no idea that the outside world believes otherwise. He doesn't realize that not only is his Osama statement well known, it's actually quite a popular target of mockery. What's more, nobody on his staff has ever clued him in.

"It's a pretty good metaphor for Bush's biggest problem: his staff spoon feeds him a rosy view of the outside world and he honestly believes that this rosy world is the real world -- and that's why he makes so many disastrous decisions. After all, you can't solve real world problems if you refuse to understand the real world in the first place."

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber is becoming a Kerry convert:

"I've never thought the chances of John Kerry winning this fall were very good, since it's become clear these last four years that George W. Bush and his advisers are more cynical and ruthless than pretty much any group of politicos in the country's history. I figured that even if the race got close--or, God forbid, Kerry surged to a late lead--Rove et al. would pull some dirty trick and that would be that. This may still happen--the forthcoming anti-Kerry 'documentary' being exhibit A in this brief. But, after last night, I'm not sure it matters. Kerry won so decisively I don't see many ways for Bush to recover.

"Maybe most importantly, there's what Bush didn't accomplish. In the second half of Friday night's debate, Bush put Kerry on the defensive by wielding the liberal label like a cudgel, over and over again. But, partly because Kerry spent so much time attacking, and partly because Bob Schieffer's questions actually focused on domestic policy, rather than domestic-policy-as-culture-war-fodder, Bush never got the chance.

"There was, quite simply, no way for Bush to win the debate if people didn't walk away from it believing Kerry would massively increase the size of government, jack up taxes, outlaw guns, and pay poor people to have abortions. That never happened. (Another thing that never happened: Bush never wiped the spittle off of the right corner of his mouth. If it distracted me--I actually care about what the candidates are saying--I don't see how it didn't distract the rest of the country.)

"Bush also made a couple of important gaffes that exposed how out of touch with reality he is. When Bush fielded a question about the depleted flu shot supply, he seemed to be blaming the British or the legal system--anyone but his own administration. When he took a question about the very real 'backdoor draft' of the National Guard and Army Reserve, he simply asserted that the ostensible concerns of our guardsmen and reservists don't exist. How does he know this? Because he met with them in Maine and they told him so. . . .

"When Kerry suggested that ordinary citizens deserved access to the same health-care plan that Congress gives itself, Bush responded, derisively, that you couldn't possibly do that because it would bankrupt the country. Excuse me, Mr. President? So it's okay if we spend what it takes to make sure senators and congressmen have first-rate health care, but not if we spend what it takes for the average American to have the same thing?"

The debate goes on.