— She took racy cell phone pics.
— She did that Vanity Fair shoot.
— She has been "reading about Buddhism."
— She likes RuPaul.
If that doesn't sound like a well-coordinated campaign to capture the hearts and minds of virtuous young conservatives and turn them into promiscuous gay Buddhists, I don't know what does. And Cherry doesn't even mention Miley's little sister's "lingerie" line! He does acknowledge that Cyrus doesn't currently sing country music — so far she's just further destroying the souls of already-fallen pop-loving tweens. But because of her dad, maybe someday she could! And then "she could be a corrupting, left-leaning, influence on an industry that so many liberal elites want to see taken out of the 'red state' column."
Of course, most liberals probably couldn't care less what "column" country music resides in. Like many left-wingers, I like a lot of country artists, including Emmylou Harris, Alison Krauss, and of course Johnny Cash. But aside from a desire to see acts I like succeed, I can't imagine wanting to "take over" the genre from the likes of, say, Easton Corbin, whose "A Little More Country Than That" Amanda Marcotte effectively skewers. I don't consider it a political failure when someone makes music I don't like — I just don't listen to it.
Marcotte makes a solid point that country music really wasn't all that virginal to begin with, but the most compelling argument against Cherry's piece is really that in the landscape of American politics, Miley Cyrus is just not that important. Says Marcotte, "Cyrus probably knows less about politics than she does about writing songs." And I will say this: if Miley's really the left wing's secret weapon, we are fucked.