A Republican mystery

I kind of pride myself on being able to follow what we could generously call the "logic" of even the weirdest Republican arguments.

I mean, I nailed the Dred Scott thing right away.  I even know about the apocalypse, in which God finally brings horrible massive destruction on Jews, Catholics, liberals, Democrats and all other manner of godless degenerate heathens.

But I've got to admit I'm struggling with this "Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney" theme, or meme, or whatever we call it.  Reporters and bloggers seem to like "meme" better, so I guess I should stick with blogspeak and use "meme."

So, here goes, as I try to peer deep into the soul of the Republican Party, trying not to succumb to hysterical screaming in the process.  As I see it, to today's Republican Party the world looks like this:

* When Republican Senator Rick Santorum compares gay love to "man on dog" sex, that's just fine.  Although maybe a touch in bad taste.  But he's trying to preserve Traditional Values.

* When the Christian Right evangelists rant about how them ho-mo-sexuals are degenerates who're gone burn in Hail, that's fine, too.  Because this is God's Country, and they're doing God's Work.

* When Tom DeLay and the House Republicans insist on bringing up an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment so they can demagogue about how the Democrats are a bunch of limp-wristed perverts who want to destroy the Traditional Family, that's okay too.  You know, preserving those Traditional Values.

* When Colorado Republican Congressional candidate Marilyn Musgrave builds on that ploy to attack her Democratic opponent with a campaign letter that says, "If we allow these vicious ads to go unanswered then Stan Matsunaka and the radical homosexual lobby could succeed by deceiving the voters, and win on Election Day,"  (translation: "my opponent's a faggot"), why that's just more good Christian Republicanism.  Laboring in the vineyard for God and the Republican Party.

* When Mary Cheney, an openly lesbian woman, takes part in a special outreach program to attract gay and lesbian voters to the Republican Party, that's fine, because it allows some of those sissy businesspeople who think Tom DeLay's down-home brand of trashin' queers is a tad uncouth to imagine that they're part of a tolerant, "big tent" Republican Party.

* When Gwen Ifill in the October 5 vice presidential debate says in asking Dick Cheney a question:

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

And when John Edwards says in his turn:

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. 

And when Ifill asked a follow-up question about same-sex unions and Cheney ducked it by saying only this:

Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. 

I appreciate that very much. 

All that was okay, in Republican eyes, because we not only get another moment of "big tent" effect, but it lets Dark Lord Cheney look like a generous, caring human being for at least a few seconds.  And besides, the Dark Lord still supports the gay-baiting amendment anyway.

* But in the third presidential debate, when Bush's long-time friend Bob Schieffer asked, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?", Bush proceeded to demagogue about the anti-gay-marriage amendment.  And John Kerry in his response included a reference to Mary Cheney, who is serving as a senior official in her father's campaign, saying:

We're all God's children, Bob. And 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. 

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. 

Well, this is just a horrible, horrible thing in the Republican Party mind, because... because... because ... dadgummit, I still can't follow the logic of this thing.

I heard David Brooks on the PBS Newshour, who seems to be so deep into his continuing clown act that he can't turn it off any more, just going on and on about what a deeply troubling comment this was, and what a terrible character flaw it shows in John Kerry.  He even accused Kerry of pandering to evangelical Christians with the remark!

Maybe the Republicans are just so panicked at this point that they're rushing around like three-month-old kittens crashing into walls and stuff.  Mark Shields said in his response to Brooks that the Republicans would probably use this as the excuse for dumping all sorts of dirt on Kerry and his wife and who-knows-who-else for the next two weeks and couple of days before the election.

In his New York Times column on Saturday, Brooks was even deeper into goofiness: Debate, Declaim, Debacle 10/16/04.  And to think, sometime during the last year and slightly more since I started this blog, I've actually had nice things to say about this sad David Brooks.  What could have been going through my head?

Anyway, now we've got the Republican Party, with its big tent full of people like Rick Santorum and Marilyn Musgrave and Pat Robertson, trying to paint John Kerry and John Edwards as the anti-gay candidates?

Maybe you can you get an Oxycontin high just by listening to radio programs, I don't know.  Sometimes the Republicans just get so far around the bend even I can't follow the logic.  Give me a simple "Isaiah warned us about Saddam Hussein" prophecy to decipher, and I can probably handle that.

Be sure to check out what AOL-Journalers Marcia Ellen and Mara at De Profundis have to say on this.  (Marcia Ellen has her usual painfully good graphics, of course.)

And while I'm on the subject, what kind of question was that for presidential candidates?  A question on public policy is one thing.  But, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" is a topic for a scientific symposium or academic conference.  What, are presidents supposed to be technical experts in psychiatry now?

I realize that the Christian Right characterizes homosexuality as a sinful "lifestyle" and that this question is part of the discussion.  But, come on.  The development of sexuality is a complex process involving genetic heritage, general culture and personal experiences.  And Schieffer is asking two professional politicians to give a 90-second sound byte response to this?  In a country where serious adults gnash their teeth (maybe even rend their garments) over Janet Jackson flashing a not-even-nekkid breast at her Super Bowl performance?