It takes a Republican to be this breathtakingly hypocritical
John over at AmericaBlog gets it just about right regarding the Cheneys' obviously contrived anger at John Kerry for mentioning lesbian daughter Mary Cheney during the third debate. Describing how he thinks being gay is not just a choice, Kerry said:
"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. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."
That's it. He wasn't outing Mary Cheney -- she's been publicly out for years, no big secret there. And yet, that low-key and respectful remark was enough to send the Cheneys over the edge with outrage.
Of course, as John points out, when Illinois Republican Senate candidate and moronic dipshit Alan Keyes blasted that same Mary Cheney (at the Republican National Convention) as being nothing but a "selfish hedonist" based solely on her sexual orientation, you didn't hear a peep out of the Cheneys or anyone else in the Republican hierarchy of swine.
Colour me shocked.
ADDENDUM: At least one other blogger has asked the obvious question related to the above: just what is it that the Cheneys are angry about, precisely? If you read the SFGate article, you'll learn that Dick is a "pretty angry father", and that Lynne thinks Kerry pulled a "cheap and tawdry political trick." But why? What's the foundation for this outrage?
They can't possibly be accusing Kerry of outing Mary; she's been publicly out for years. Kerry also didn't denigrate Mary in any way; in fact, he was (as you can read for yourself) quite respectful.
So what's the problem? And why has no reporter asked that obvious question?
ADDENDUM 2: And while we're on the subject of whether one's kid was legitimately insulted, let me draw your attention to what one despicable right-wing asshole once wrote about Chelsea Clinton here. I suggest reading the entire piece to really appreciate the loathsome and vile nature of Mr. Derbyshire, but here are the tastiest excerpts:
More than anything, I admit, I hate Chelsea because she is a Clinton. Not just genetically a Clinton, but in spirit and habit and manner. The evidence for this is now, I think, sufficient to indict...She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)
Yes, you read that correctly -- Derbyshire is advocating killing Chelsea Clinton because of her heritage. And, if memory serves, I've never heard any compassionate conservative taking Derbyshire to task for his odious comments.
So anyone looking to take a swing at John Kerry for his admirable and complimentary remarks about Mary Cheney might want to phrase their complaints very carefully indeed.