Sex and Love in the GOP

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynne Cheney is deflecting talk of the sexual content in her novel "Sisters," a 25-year-old book that resurfaced in a campaign Friday and is stirring up controversy.

The novel, featuring a lesbian love affair, .......

That was all I needed to read. I was off to Amazon.com to rustle up some hot GOP girl-on-girl action.

So imagine the, um, let down when I discovered the book is out of print. I figured it must be damn hot though, because used copies (I won't make the obvious gross joke if you won't) are going for nearly $1,000.

As it turns out, I was in for a world of disappointment. The CNN story promised me "racy" and "steamy" scenes. But when I used "the Google" to conduct research on the book (ok, to find the hot sex scenes) none of the many sites discussing the book and its alleged steam actually quoted any. I began to suspect no such scenes existed. Sure, I could have read the whole book myself -- it's available by PDF if you want -- but I didn't want to work that hard to find smut, even if it is Republican smut. Or maybe especially if it's Republican smut.

What I discovered with a little more research (real research this time, sadly) is that Cheney's book is apparently a half-way decent tale about women in late 19th century Wyoming. It does include a sympathetic portrayal of a love affair between two women, but is a much more nuanced story than news reports led me to believe. One feminist scholar described it as "a real page-turner" that follows "in the tradition of feminist writing of the 1970's."

Booorrring.

CNN got me all worked up over nothing.

As it turns out, I'm not the only one. When I finally got around to reading the rest of it, I found out the point of the CNN story was that an increasingly desperate George "Macacah" Allen decided to attack his Democratic opponent, Jack Webb, by accusing him of writing a book with sex in it.* I have no idea if Webb's book does have sex in it. CNN had already burned me once, and I wasn't ready for the emotional and physical turmoil of another let down. Anyway, Webb struck back by telling Washington Post radio listeners to go read Cheney's "lesbian love scenes if you want to get, you know, graphic on stuff."

He's such a tease.

He's also a bit of a disappointment. I would have been happier with him if he hadn't let himself be drawn into this stupid fight in the first place. If his book has sex in it, he should have just said, "Yeah, there's sex in it. Now can we talk about the war in Iraq, health care and the economy?" If the book doesn't have sex in it, he should have said, "Nope, no sex -- wasn't integral to the plot. Now can we talk about the war in Iraq, health care and the economy?"

What he should not have done is feed into this stupid national obsession with sex, where we publicly act like we're too pure to get a little action, but every day millions are getting some, and most of the rest are wishing we were. If we would all just admit the obvious fact that we think sex is pretty cool, we could avoid these silly distractions in elections and talk about stuff that actually affects our lives. That isn't gonna happen, of course. When it comes to sex, we as a people are only slightly less mature than your average seventh grader.

Webb missed a chance to make a legitimate point, though to be fair he probably couldn't make it if he wants to win an election in Virginia. I, however, am not running for office. And I only have two readers. So I am perfectly free to point out that Lynne Cheney's book is not interesting because it might have hot lesbian sex scenes. Well, it's not interesting only because it might have hot lesbian sex scenes. It's interesting because Lynne Cheney and her husband are prominent social conservatives. It's interesting because their daughter is a lesbian. It's interesting because Cheney lists several of her books on the White House web site, but not this one. It's interesting because when the publisher wanted to reissue the book in 2004, Cheney refused. And it's interesting because, purely coincidentally I'm sure, in 2004 Cheney's husband's boss was running for re-election in a campaign that found its most stalwart support among right-wing religious conservatives hell-bent on using as many state constitutions as possible to deny gays and lesbians the right to have their own loving relationships acknowledged as marriages or civil unions.

Fictional sex might be fun to read, but it shouldn't be a matter of political debate. Self-serving hypocrisy among the self-righteous crafters of public policy, on the other hand, is worth a little public discussion.

____________________________________
*Webb's book is fiction. Nevertheless, I have it from a reliable source (Hi Amy) that some on the Right were ranting that the media are focused on the actual e-mails and instant messages an actual Republican Congressman actually named Mark Foley sent to actual Congressional pages, but not giving any coverage to Webb's writing. Which is fiction. This lunacy should not be surprising. The Far Right's inability to distinguish fact and fiction is the best explanation for our Iraq policy.

Apparently I Do Need An Editor Yelling At Me

So when I started this blogging thing, the plan was to write at least once a week. Officially, that's still the plan.

Not all plans work out.

It's No Coincidence that November is Also Sweeps Month

The average American out there loves the show 24. Ok. They love Jack Bauer. They love 24. In my mind that's as close to a national referendum that it's OK to use tough tactics against high-level Al-Quaeda operatives as we're gonna get.

Laura Ingraham on ... wait for it...
The O'Reilly Factor

My first instinct upon hearing Ingraham was to try to explain to her that the very reason we have a Constitution is to guarantee that the government cannot do certain things, no matter how popular those things might be. School segregation is a good example. Torture is another. The Constitution, I wanted to explain, was crafted to protect fundamental rights from what some have labeled the tyranny of the majority.

Ok, that isn't entirely true. My first instinct was to scream and throw something at my TV. But screaming upsets my dogs, and my TV was expensive.

Then I wanted to laugh. It was necessary to prevent the crying. See, Ingraham shared her insight on the American political psyche after she and O'Reilly talked about our government stripping a prisoner naked, locking him in a freezer, and making him listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

And for them the only question was whether playing the Chili Peppers was torture.

Dumbasses.

But as I suppressed the screams and wiped away the tears, it slowly dawned on me what a service to democracy Ingraham had done. She simplified participatory democracy. Now we can have it without so much participation. No more pollsters calling you in the middle of your favorite TV shows. No more painfully orchestrated debates between wooden candidates. No more standing in line to vote. We can set public policy just by sitting on our fat lazy butts and watching TV. Genius.

Not to denigrate Ingraham's brilliance, but I feel as a dork that I am obligated to point out that she isn't the first to come up with this idea. It was central to the plot of an old episode of Dr. Who. Collin Baker's Doctor, I believe.

Anyway, I digress into geekspeak. The point is that I watch a lot of television, which means my DVR and I are sitting on a gold mine of public policy analysis. We've compiled the results, and I'm not sure Ingraham is going to be all that happy with them.

For example, "The West Wing" was a popular show for 7 years. It starred a liberal actor playing a liberal president who knew how to pronounce "nuclear." If Supreme Court justices watched more TV, they would have realized just how wrong they were when they appointed W.

"Will and Grace" was apparently an incredibly popular show, and Ellen DeGeneres kissing her girlfriend was one of the most-watched and anticipated moments in television history. That, according to Ingraham's reasoning, is as close to a national referendum on the acceptance of homosexuality as we are going to get.

There does seem to be a bit of a conflict on the issue of crime. "Law and Order" remains quite popular, but "The Sopranos" is practically a multimedia juggernaut, capturing not only the HBO audience, but huge DVD sales. The edge has to go to Tony Soprano and his family, meaning that murder is now an acceptable means of resolving rivalries.

I am having a hard time figuring out the policy implications of "Lost."

Sex, though, is obviously and heartily endorsed under this new governing regime. And I don't mean silent, man-on-top once-a-week missionary position between a man and his wife sexual congress, as permitted by Ingraham, O'Reilly and their family values cronies. No, no, no. By inexplicably granting "Desperate Housewives" a third season, for example, we have given the societal green light to sleeping around -- though that may only be for hot suburban housewives. Decades of soap operas back up this conclusion. And I haven't watched much of "Grey's Anatomy" or "Scrubs," but as far as I can tell they serve as a referendum on sex in hospitals. Apparently we're for it.

Then there's porn, which we as a nation are paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year to watch. Well, you know, not me. Or you. Those other people. Lots of those other people. So while you and I are obviously repulsed by the idea of a random pizza delivery erupting into a three-way with a boom-chicka-boom soundtrack...well, what can we do? As right as our self-righteousness might be, the people have spoken (or moaned) and we've been outvoted. Kinky sex is the law.

Democracy is a harsh mistress.

Hopefully there's a safe word. It used to be "Constitution."