Clueless Sexual Politics

IN ANY OTHER YEAR AN AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION

Classlessness compounded by outrageousness.

In the third presidential debate, John Kerry says, "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." Beyond the sheer audacity of this Kerry comment, one must ponder what destination the imagined political endgame?

What lame-brained strategy requires John Kerry to shine the spotlight on Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter's sexuality? The same strategy that inspired John Edwards to comment at length in the veep debate, and for Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's on-again, off-again campaign manager, to declare Mary Cheney "fair game."

Then you also have to factor in a low-rent rebuttal from Elizabeth Edwards, the senator's wife, who saw in Lynne Cheney's defensive outrage "a certain degree of shame" over her daughter's sexuality ... that makes me very sad."
But wait, there's more. Responding to a news reporter's question, "Do you regret what you said about Mary Cheney during the debate?" John Kerry dodges an opportunity to apologize and end the issue. Perhaps sensing that neither hoi polloi nor peanut gallery has understood his nuance, he lectures:

No, I don’t. I said it in a very respectful way about their love for their daughter. I’m surprised at the reaction. I was saying it in a way that embraced their love of their daughter ... all I was trying to do was point out that it - it - let their daughter speak.

I was trying to point out that they have embraced their daughter and that they don’t raise questions and that Dick Cheney himself is against a constitutional amendment — a reflection of love and I think recognition of who their daughter is."

Some have wondered what Kerry is trying to say. With no claim to any special knowledge, but using our new Universal Translator (stolen from a comatose Trilateral commissioner undergoing regeneration) we'll try a Kerry-to-Earth translation:

1. I don't make mistakes, you people misinterpret.
2. The vice president's poor daughter needs someone to speak up for her rights, since obviously her parents, loving though they may be, will not.
3. Even Dick Cheney recognizes the evil in the Federal Marriage Amendment but he won't fight against Bush's radical agenda.

Our translation matrix makes allowances for Kerry's arrogance, his tendency to channel the living and the dead, and our suspicion that Kerry was trying to simultaneously fire up his base while depressing the Bush faithful. By our scorecard, he only succeeded in looking arrogant. Instead he has fired up the Bush-Cheney faithful and has infuriated an undetermined number of Democrats and Independents, gay and straight.

How badly will this damage the Kerry-Edwards candidacy?

How much more could his candidacy be damaged? If this were any other presidential election year, Kerry would've been toast two months ago, and Dubya would already be planning his Supreme Court appointments and finding someone, anyone to replace the feckless Norman Mineta. In contrast to four years ago, Al Gore certainly had his share of verbal gaffes, but he was a peach of a candidate compared to Kerry.

It is obvious to anyone with half of a functioning left brain that modern Democrats (and the MainStreamMedia allies) will say anything to regain the White House. We fear worse is yet to come. Kerry's continued strength in the polls (relatively speaking) speaks to the present darkness of the times in which we live when 40 percent or more are willing to call evil "good" and good "evil," and another 15-20 percent get confused easily and don't want to be forced to make a decision.

While we hope that this latest outrage will tip the scales so that the election will not be close, it is much better to believe that the sharp American political divide will make this election very and uncomfortably tight. This way we will work harder to get our people to the polls.

If I am wrong, I will joyously apologize.