Skip to main content

Quick question...

Mary Cheyney is a grown woman. She is an employee of her father's campaign. She is also a lesbian. Sort of a professional lesbian inasmuch as her pre-campaign job was improving Coors Gay market share. Thanks to the homophobic pandering of the (not-much-longer-God-willing) President, she can't be married. However, she DOES wear a "wedding" ring. As an out, professional, "married" lesbian, one imagines that she is not ashamed to be who she is. But somebody IS ashamed. The Cheney's are mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore.

Dick, Lynne and Big Sis (BS) Liz have all made scathing remarks about Kerry's brief and, frankly innocuous, comment in response to a debate question about homosexuality. Dick is an angry Dad. Lynne says he's a bad man. Mary says... well, NOTHING. Hmm, how come we haven't heard from the "injured" party. At Paula Zahn's town hall meeting, BS Liz labeled the remark being offensive. When Zahn asked if MARY was offended, BS Liz deflected. She left people to "draw their own conclusions."

But what conclusions are we to draw? That being a lesbian is offensive? That mentioning the biological certainty of homosexuality is offensive? BS Liz went do far as to refer to her sister as the "Vice President's CHILD." A child??? John McCain's adopted daughter was a CHILD when Rove's minion's spun her racial heritage into a wedge that cost him his considerable momentum. A grown professional woman who travels with her lesbian partner on the campaign trail is not a child.

Given the Cheyney's Gay-when-we-wanna-be strategy, their "outrage" is outrageous. They want to have it both ways. Shame about the lesbianism (to pander to the fundamentalist Righties) and open arm acceptance (to minimize the hemorrhaging of Gay voters with common sense). On November 3rd, do you think they'll let Mary out of the closet to say how she feels about the scandal?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Two Parties are NOT the same.

Thinking about the differences between the Dems and the Trump. Trump is promising "America First" jingoism without delivering anything but racism, while riding the economic tide of his predecessor. Consider what the Dems have been DEMANDED to fix. 1) Healthcare for all Americans 2) Student loan relief 3) A workable immigration solution 4) $15 min. wage and/or guaranteed income 5) Incremental gun regulation 6) Protecting the environment 7) Iran nuclear treaty 8) Thwarting Russian election interference 9) Reparations 10) Lowering taxes for middle class 11) Raising taxes for the 1% 12) Improving K-12 education 13) Rolling back Citizens United 14) Protecting Roe v. Wade 15) A satisfying DC Cinematic Universe (why not?) It's perfectly fine to be in your feelings if you are upset that this country is so f*cked that your particular issue is not being trumpeted by all (or any) of the Democratic primary candidates. It's even OK if you feel that the cur...

Ashley Todd

Y'all know the story by now. White, female McCain phonebanker, Ashley Todd, leaves Texas to venture North to support her candidate. After a stint in New York, she ends up in Pittsburgh until Thursday, when she lost her effing mind and became Susan Smith Part Deux . The McCain campaign can hardly be blamed for this girl's actions. However, they need to be questioned on their response. Within hours of the incendiary allegations, two things happened. McCain and Palin called Ashley Todd. A press flack from McCain's Pennsylvania operation started pushing the story and adding salacious details. Consider what was at stake here. In a campaign environment already marked with strained racial tensions, Todd's story was potenitally explosive. It would have made a lot more sense to issue a generic statement (like Obama's campaign did). Instead, McCain and Palin lent legitimacy to the allegations (at least for a few hours) by calling her. They vetted Todd's story abou...

After Birth of a Nation

So I finally paid to watch BOAN. I can now offer my commentary without being a hypocrite. Full disclosure... After watching the movie, I reread the ACTUAL "Confessions of Nat Turner" (not the Styron novel) to make sure I wasn't trippin'. Before you comment on anything I have to say, please confirm that you have done the same. This movie was over-hyped. It was a ambitious effort at telling an overlooked story. It did have some compelling moments. However, the idea that this is an important film because it tells the ACCURATE story of Turner's revolt is diminished by the innumerable instances of artistic license and outright misrepresentation of facts. A "Based on a true story" title card doesn't mean you get to play Law & Order SVU with the historical record to the extent that you actually twist Turner into something he wasn't. To be clear, there is precious little in the historical record of Turner's life. Consequently, one might argu...