OKAY FUCK IT, ONE MORE, TO COMBAT EXCESSIVE HACK-DOM

Think harder, Mickey:

Best case: Of the explanations of the Kerry-Mary debacle I've heard, this is the one that's most favorable to Kerry (from reader C.H.):

the Mary Cheney remark was just off the cuff, the REAL problem is that most of America didn't know that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. So instead of Kerry making a pretty decent point, many Americans thought he had OUTED her.

Do you believe that 1) the remark was unplanned, even though Edwards had made a similar remark a week earlier; 2) Kerry didn't know that many Americans didn't know Dick Cheney had a daughter who was gay (i.e.; that he'd be informing them she was gay, out of the closet or not); 3) Kerry didn't know that many Americans would not like that she was gay even if they knew she was out of the closet; and 4) viewers would have thought Kerry's remark appropriate if they knew Mary Cheney was out of the closet? If Kerry had informed them in the same breath that she was out of the closet? That seems like a lot to swallow.

I have a little thought experiment to go with that hypothetical, Mickey.

Suppose what the emailer said is correct, that to many less-informed Americans it seemed as if Kerry "outed" Mary Cheney in the debate.

Now think about the responses made by both Lynne ("John Kerry is not a good man") and Dick ("I'm a pretty angry father").

Did those responses do anything in the slightest to take away from the idea that what happened during the debate was an outing?

Both Dick and Lynne would have to have known what the emailer said, that many would think Mary had been outed. Thus, their condemnation of Kerry was general and vague. Purposefully vague, I might add.

Of course, the willful distortion of John Kerry's record and public statements has been the MO of the entire Bush 2004 campaign, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. And it's not just the campaign: Let's take the gay marriage issue in general. Most polls have shown either a plurality or a simple majority of Americans oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, many of those who oppose it are under the impression that legalizing it would force private religious organizations (you know, churches) both to recognize them as valid and to perform them. This is, of course, not the case.

The problem is, has anybody in the White House, or their allies brought this to the attention of the American people? Nope, for one reason above others: Their position only thrives off of a dishonest ambiguity. As long as they're ambiguous, they can try to get away with their "ban the Bible!" scares.

For the very same reason, we are blessed with Dick and Lynne's purposefully ambiguous statements on John Kerry's comment.

Now who's being Machiavellian?