Okay, one more
Also on Tapped, Garance Franke-Ruta points out that “Among the odder spectacles of this political season is how every middle-aged straight male pundit in America, from Bill Kristol to Mickey Kaus, is suddenly an expert on lesbians.”
ETA: Here’s what’s bizarre. One of the things I’ve noticed in my occasional online confrontations is this: Every now and then, even as I’m making an argument, I’ll be aware somewhere in my head that there is a valid counterargument to be made. I try to cover and allow for this, but even so when I read the responses the next day or whenever, I half expect to see people taking shots at what I already know my weak spots to be.
It almost never happens. It’s almost always some attempt at a debating trick to change the argument from what I said to what they feel safe attacking. Which is what brings me back to the Mary Cheney issue. If any smart right-wing pundit stood up and said–
“The issue is not whether being openly gay is something anyone should be ashamed of. The question is whether the private life of the child of the vice-president should have been made fodder for the campaign.”
–It’d be impossible to fuck with.
But again, virtually no one has said that. 98% of all pundits appear intent on revealing their anti-gay prejudice by writing about Kerry’s “outing” the woman, as if he’d said she were a drunken gambling addict.
Is it me, or is Kerry’s statement starting to look less and less like a mistake right about now?
