October 19, 2004

Lessons In Missing the Point

I have a few rare moments of free time, so I figured I'd fisk a couple letters from the New York Times. I realize that this is like shooting fish in a barrel...or, more accurately, shooting dead whales in an empty swimming pool...but it's fun, and that's all that matters. Also, these are about Kedwards' use of the "Dick Cheney's daughter is gay" technique, which I haven't really covered yet. Let's begin:

In his Oct. 18 column, "The Lowest Blow," William Safire misses the mark.

Pot, kettle, etc. etc.

He correctly decries the use of someone's personal life for political advantage but overlooks the complete hypocrisy of the Republican reaction to Senator John Kerry's comments about Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary during the last presidential debate.

Well, it's pretty easy to miss something when it doesn't exist. I might as well call you an idiot for not noticing the rabid unicorns in your basement.

A party that pushes state amendments banning gay marriage in an effort to get homophobic voters to the polls on Election Day is in no position to complain when another candidate makes a similar appeal to prejudice.

Non-sequiturs ahoy! I'm glad that you're so skilled at getting into the heads of Republicans, since you've apparently decided that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is "homophobia." After all, everyone knows that two men or two women should be able to marry, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot! The constant denial that opposing viewpoints can be valid is one of my main problems with modern liberalism.

Seriously, just look at that last paragraph for a second. This person refuses to believe that principled opposition to same-sex marriage exists. It can only be the result of "homophobia" or "appeals to prejudice." I do. not. understand. how people can think like this. It just doesn't make sense.

I'll skip the rest of that one and move on to letter #2:

The Kerry campaign may indeed have made Mary Cheney's private life the centerpiece of its answer to the question of same-sex marriage, as William Safire suggests.

It may have, yes. Brilliant deduction.

Yet surely the assault on the private lives of gay Americans was begun by none other than President Bush, who has made his support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage part of his re-election effort.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Look, moron, nobody is making an "assault on the private lives of gay Americans." In fact, the "private lives" of gays aren't being targeted at all. People are free to form whatever private relationships they want, but government marriage is a public institution, and same-sex marriage would constitute a federal endorsement of their personal behavior. Can you see the difference? The only "assault" is the one coming from the courts when they pretend to be part of the legislative branch.

John Kerry and John Edwards have simply given the target of that assault a human face.

Hmmm...let's look, for example, at what 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.

That's not "giving the target a human face." It's called "putting words in someone's mouth." Has Kerry talked to Mary Cheney? No. But he presumes to speak for her, which reveals a callous elitism on the part of Senator F**kup.

He could've easily said, "...if you were to talk to any homosexual," rather than specifically mentioning Dick Cheney's daughter. Or, he could've spoken to a homosexual and gotten a genuine quote. But instead, he chose to specifically mention Mary Cheney, whom he has never talked to.

Let's compare, just for the sake of clarity.

Bush opposes same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons he has outlined several times, but insists that he still believes in tolerance and respect.

Kerry/Edwards, without being prompted to do so, bring up Cheney's daughter in a discussion of same-sex marriage, then claim to know how she thinks.

Which of these do you consider an "assault," SIT readers?

Posted by CD on October 19, 2004 11:11 AM
Category: Fiskings
Semi-Intelligent Comments

It must be annoying for them not such complicated people to not to be able to understand such a simple concept. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation at all. It's the speaking for and bring up of family members of the oppositon for political gain. Yet they don't understand. (Sigh). Well, it's the complexity that makes them superior to us simplitons.

Posted by: Jim at October 20, 2004 12:52 PM
< MTCloseComments old="10" >