Gay Patriot Header Image

Mary Cheney’s Baby & Her Father’s Quality

If I were perhaps less drained from jury service, I might have more to say on the birth of Mary Cheney’s son, Samuel David Cheney. And if I could figure out how to do pictures, I might post the picture of the Vice President and Second Lady with their sixth grandchild.

Having read Mary’s Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life (which I much enjoyed), I have to say that I agree with the president on this one; “Mary Cheney is going to make a fine mom.”

While gay activists seem to love to bash the Vice President because they don’t like his conservative politics, they should bear in mind that they claim to working to improve the lives of gay Americans. They may not agree with the Vice President on a whole host of issues, notably foreign and defense policy, but they should note that the one time he has publicly distanced himself from the president (since he was tapped to be his VP) was when he came out against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Not only that. Just to see that image of the beaming Grandpa makes us realize what kind of man Dick Cheney is. That he loves his daughter, knowing she’s gay. That he welcomes her partner Heather Poe into his family. And that he welcomes their child into his family. What better way to support the mainstreaming of gay couples — and gay families — than this open and loving acceptance. Kudos, Mr. Vice President.

Mary’s right that her baby is “a blessing from God [and] not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue.

And the Vice President’s treating the baby just as he would the child of his straight daughter shows what kind of man he is. It’s time for gay leaders to acknowledge the quality of this good man. And the example he sets for all parents of gay children.

Update from ColoradoPatriot:
Dan, here’s the picture you were trying to upload of the proud grandparents:
Grandma & Grandpa Cheney

Share

99 Comments

  1. Vaara and that lot seem more upset that someone pointed out the crib-death remark then the fact that remark was made in the first place.

    Pretty much.

    With the exception of Mike, who made a model response; he stepped up, said it was wrong, and did not in the least try to say or imply, “Well, FreeRepublic was doing it too…..”

    Meanwhile, I think a lot of the people on FreeRepublic need to learn to mind their own business in this regard. And I also think the fact that several of the most hateful comments were criticized by OTHER commentors shows a great deal of progress.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - May 25, 2007

  2. Leah, the Edwards example isn’t the best, but I do think it illustrates the left’s obsession with material gain and with a material definition of happiness and therefore political solution. I don’t hear anyone on the right complaining about his success per se (only about the means by which he achieved it), yet here is a candidate who regularly complains that American wealth is not distributed properly and that opportunity is not equally available (I’m paraphrasing — I haven’t really studied his campaign speeches because I don’t think he’s worth paying much attention to). Liberal policies that effect wealth redistribution don’t affect the wealthy. Why? Because they’re wealthy. However, they do affect the poor (particularly the working poor) and the middle class, most often to the detriment of their ability to rise. One thing I don’t hear Edwards announcing is how he plans to redistribute his multi-millions; rather, he seems very generous with our money, whose purposes I suspect are for public consumption and Democratic street credulity rather than anything more ostensibly noble. You’re right, though: He’s never denied his wealth (nor his ostentation) and he’s not likely to be giving it up anytime soon.

    Again, Mary Cheney wrote a very public book about her private life in a political family. That’s perfectly legitimate up to the point where she demands silence from others. And while the Cheneys have in no way (to my knowledge) claimed to be an example of familial ideal, we ourselves should decline to use them for that purpose. Leftist hate or rightist adoration, each for the purposes of scoring political or cultural points is in my opinion inappropriate. Wishing one side to relent while engaging in the other is in my opinion hypocrisy.

    (By the way, my comments are meant as general and are not specifically directed at you. You probably know that, but I thought I’d mention it for good measure.)

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 25, 2007 @ 1:48 pm - May 25, 2007

  3. #54 – V the K – Agreed… but let me put my own spin on.

    Family situations rank in order of descending goodness for the kid, as follows:

    1) Two opposite-sex parents who love the kid and get along.
    2) Two same-sex parents who love the kid and get along.
    3) Single parent, gay or straight, who loves the kid and can handle the situation.
    4) Two opposite-sex parents, at least one of whom is abusive and/or hates the other.
    5) Two same-sex parents, at least one of whom is abusive and/or hates the other.
    6) Traditional orphanage – say, run by nuns.
    7) Single parent, who is abusive and/or who just can’t handle the situation.
    8) Hillary Clinton “It takes a village” orphanage.
    9) Non-existence. (i.e., death, or never having been born)

    Bottom line – 2 good gay parents isn’t the most absolute perfect situation for the kid – BUT – it is a very, very good situation indeed. Way better than many of the alternatives involving heterosexuals.

    If Dobson, et. al. get that wrong – then they are being anti-gay (i.e., not fully rational) and I reject any of their comments along those lines.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - May 25, 2007

  4. HH writes: “And while the Cheneys have in no way (to my knowledge) claimed to be an example of familial ideal, we ourselves should decline to use them for that purpose.”

    I agree HH; it’s why I wrote: “Dan, but in a way, to ask for them (the GLBT) to acknowledge Cheney’s graciousness and proper conduct –as you’ve done here– isn’t that using the child for a political purpose?”

    I think we ought to let the Cheneys get back to enjoying their children and focus in on why John Edwards is “uncomfortable” to be around gays… and why he refers to us as “those people”. Arrgh!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 25, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - May 25, 2007

  5. MM, you da man. And ‘those people’ sure give good haircuts, don’t they?

    Addendum: Above, I wrote that liberal policies don’t affect the wealthy. They do, but not significantly.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 25, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - May 25, 2007

  6. HH: Matt has come far, apparently, from the days when you used to mock him as “GayRightBorg” (for his having invented the term “GayLeftBorg”). Nice to see you are capable of changing your opinion about someone. 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 2:28 pm - May 25, 2007

  7. NDT, if my condemnation of the crib death comment doesn’t count because I also addressed the other comments in the same post (I try to not post successive items and will post several ideas in one post), no problem. For the record, I am in no way excusing the comment because I brought the others up, or even trying to lessen how vile it was, and that was not my intent. The comment was disgusting and reprehensible, and the fact that only one person in that particular thread even criticized it as V the K noted, is at the very least, disappointing and unfortunate. I’ll consider in the future to not address other things when a similar situation occurs.

    54, V the K, I agree that what you are saying is not anti-gay. But some of the other comments in the referenced quote were.

    55, NDT, that’s great that the comments in the thread you referenced were condemned by other righty posters. Too bad that didn’t happen with the crib death comment.

    51, Yes, I’ll condemn it. I don’t care about the hair crap, or find it troubling that he repeated a story about his son’s death and forgot that he did a year or two later. But the fact that he felt uncomfortable with “those” people and said it, is hypocritical and stupid. And I was beginning to like Edwards too. This, in and of itself, is losing what support I had of Edwards.

    Comment by Pat — May 25, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - May 25, 2007

  8. #61 – Pat, thank you for your honesty. It’s rare around here from some of the lower-case-trolls. Kudos.

    #57 – ILC (the artist formerly known as Cal), it’s funny that the Clintons believed that “it took a village” to raise a child, but still abducted Elian Gonzales from his Miami family to deport him to Cuba.

    Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy?

    That incident STILL makes my blood boil after all these years. You don’t do that to a child. Period.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - May 25, 2007

  9. Well, in Elian’s case, it was more like “It takes a gulag to raise a child.”

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - May 25, 2007

  10. NDT, if my condemnation of the crib death comment doesn’t count because I also addressed the other comments in the same post (I try to not post successive items and will post several ideas in one post), no problem.

    Pat, you and I have a long history, and by now I think we understand each other. Rest assured, if it doesn’t count, I’ll tell you. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2007 @ 3:37 pm - May 25, 2007

  11. Maybe we should offer to trade Michael Moore for Elian Gonzales.

    Though by this time, the poor kid has probably been so fckued up on sodium pentothal and other “rehabilitation” devices so beloved by Communists that he’s probably nothing short of autistic.

    (By the way, 401K-of-the-lower-class, that description above is considered TORTURE. Get the picture?)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 3:39 pm - May 25, 2007

  12. Of course the SIDS comment was vile and unforgivable. I never said it wasn’t, and any inference you might draw from my failure to address it directly is therefore automatically suspect.

    Now if only we could see what was in the many comments that JimRob saw fit to delete from the FreeRepublic thread…

    Comment by vaara — May 25, 2007 @ 3:59 pm - May 25, 2007

  13. Vaara, I will do you a favor.

    Of course the SIDS comment was vile and unforgivable.

    Much better.

    The rest of your post I will ignore and not comment upon.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - May 25, 2007

  14. Don’t even waste your time, ND30. These are the same people who cheered Cindy Sheehan when she declared she wanted to go back in time and smother the infant George W. Bush in his crib with a pillow.

    Nice example of motherhood there. Wonder if her son Casey was proud of her?

    I’ll go one step further. I personally believe the lower-case-libtards give the Pro-Choice movement a reason to exist.

    Let’s see if they can take it as well as they dish it out. Frankly, I don’t think they can.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - May 25, 2007

  15. Again with the slander. I have never “cheered Cindy Sheehan,” much less for the remark in question, which I was never even aware that she had made.

    I suppose it’s convenient to lump all your perceived “enemies” together into a single undifferentiated mass, but it’s also profoundly lazy.

    Comment by vaara — May 25, 2007 @ 4:55 pm - May 25, 2007

  16. “I suppose it’s convenient to lump all your perceived “enemies” together into a single undifferentiated mass, but it’s also profoundly lazy.”

    Pot, meet kettle.

    You also proved my point about name-callers who can dish it out but can’t take it. And in record time to boot.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - May 25, 2007

  17. Name-caller? Moi?

    OK, so maybe referring to your debating technique as “lazy” wasn’t very nice, but I defy you to find a single post of mine in which I’ve relied excessively on cutesy nicknames and/or regurgitated talk-radio talking points and/or baseless ad hominem attacks to make a point.

    Comment by vaara — May 25, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - May 25, 2007

  18. #71 – My lengthy response to you is in moderation. Hopefully it will be printed soon.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - May 25, 2007

  19. I shall look forward to reading it, but I have some projects to wrap up before the long weekend, so I may not be able to respond for a while.

    Comment by vaara — May 25, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - May 25, 2007

  20. #61:

    But the fact that he felt uncomfortable with “those” people and said it, is hypocritical and stupid.

    Pat, I think you have to consider a couple of points: first, the alleged comment is from nearly a decade ago. There are many people who have changed dramatically in their attitude towards gay people in the last ten years and I believe that Edwards is certainly one. There is also some dispute over the comment and its context. Second, as for Bob Shrum, he’s a loser: 0 for 8 in Presidential campaigns he’s run. Perhaps he needs the money a nasty book like this will bring.

    Comment by Ian S — May 25, 2007 @ 7:30 pm - May 25, 2007

  21. Of course, not as ugly as wishing death on a child, but repugnant nonetheless.

    Consider that these folks would have gotten a carve job. These are the same folks that are gleefully aborting themselves into oblivion so, you know. What else would you expect?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 26, 2007 @ 2:57 am - May 26, 2007

  22. Second, as for Bob Shrum, he’s a loser: 0 for 8 in Presidential campaigns he’s run. Perhaps he needs the money a nasty book like this will bring.

    Interesting. He was a hero almost 3 years ago, even though he was 0-7. Is eight some sort of magical number?

    There are many people who have changed dramatically in their attitude towards gay people in the last ten years and I believe that Edwards is certainly one.

    Hmmm. Just like Bush, he opposes gay marriage. Therefore that makes him a homophobe, just like Bush. Right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 26, 2007 @ 3:02 am - May 26, 2007

  23. So, if the remark was so repugnant, why was it the first instinct of the left-siders to defend it?

    Comment by V the K — May 26, 2007 @ 7:41 am - May 26, 2007

  24. I also find it interesting that none of the lower-case-libtrolls seem upset over my postulation that their very presence gives the pro-abortion movement a reason to exist.

    I guess the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - May 26, 2007

  25. Where’s that “Billy”? He’s a poster child for the argument that we should support carve jobs under extreme circumstances.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 27, 2007 @ 7:50 am - May 27, 2007

  26. #78 – if the “truth” you’re propounding is that I ought to have been aborted, the only thing that “hurts” is the ability to take you seriously.

    Comment by vaara — May 27, 2007 @ 10:53 am - May 27, 2007

  27. #74, Ian, That is true, and points I considered when I heard about it. If Edwards has indeed evolved in his opinion and attitude toward gay persons, then I look forward to him exhibited it explicitly and clearly. In fact I’m looking for all the Democratic and some Republican candidates that truly do not believe that homosexuality is a sin to say so the next time they are asked. Candidates get some points from me for leadership vs. pandering, avoidance, or cutesy but irrelevant and condescending responses to that question. See Bush and H. Clinton for examples of the latter.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2007 @ 11:40 am - May 27, 2007

  28. Ian (#74),

    There are many people who have changed dramatically in their attitude towards gay people in the last ten years and I believe that Edwards is certainly one.

    Hmm. “I believe that Edwards is certainly one.” Illogical, I’m afraid — belief and certainty are exclusive.

    Better stated: “I would like to think Edwards is one, but cannot be sure. If true, this unfortunate revelation means that Edwards’ future statements on this subject are suspect until he satisfies a reasonable standard of change. Nonetheless, my desire that Edwards no longer feels the discomfort he allegedly expressed should not grant him a generosity I would not extend toward other candidates. That the statement was made ten years ago does not matter — bad ideas are only spoiled by better ones, not by what wishful people think are their expiration dates.”

    There is also some dispute over the comment and its context.

    There always is, isn’t there? You claim Shrum might have a financial interest in muckraking (which I agree is likely), but this doesn’t make the statement any less egregious if true. That Edwards made the statement supposedly off-the-record and to a fellow Democrat makes me wonder whether this just might have been a moment of honesty. Else, what would have been the motive?

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 27, 2007 @ 9:12 pm - May 27, 2007

  29. #83: Oh mea culpa! So my revision mistakenly left in one word “certainly.” Big whoop. Of course, no one can know for sure anything about anybody. You have to go by their actions and Edwards has proven himself on the right side of gay issues apart from same sex marriage and, in that respect, I don’t see much difference between his position and that of some who post and/or comment on this blog i.e. they support civil unions. As far as his supposedly being uncomfortable around gay people, well, so would I under certain circumstances. For example, a roomful of gay republicans in assless chaps. Eeeewwwww! 😉

    Comment by Ian S — May 27, 2007 @ 10:17 pm - May 27, 2007

  30. #82:

    I look forward to him exhibited it explicitly and clearly. In fact I’m looking for all the Democratic and some Republican candidates that truly do not believe that homosexuality is a sin to say so the next time they are asked.

    Actually, Edwards was asked that very question – is homosexuality a sin – this past February well before Hillary had her problem answering the same question. He answered with a simple “no.” As for SSM, he has stated he is conflicted over the issue and is “not there yet” in terms of supporting SSM. Sounds to me like he may eventually come around.

    Comment by Ian S — May 27, 2007 @ 10:30 pm - May 27, 2007

  31. #84, Yeah, I know what you mean. I met this really hot gay guy and the conversation was getting pretty steamy up to the point he mentioned that he was against lowering the tax rate for long-term capital gains, at which I went completely flaccid.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 28, 2007 @ 12:11 pm - May 28, 2007

  32. Great; not only are people like Billy wishing the baby dead, now they’re wishing Heather dead too.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2007 @ 2:21 am - May 29, 2007

  33. [This commenter has been repeatedly banned for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by billy — May 29, 2007 @ 7:21 am - May 29, 2007

  34. 85, Ian that’s good to hear. I did hear about his remarks about SSM, but not about the “sin” question. I look forward to hearing more positive comments from Edwards then. There’s still plenty of time for me to change back to a positive opinion on Edwards.

    What’s interesting is that to my understanding, Clinton and Bush probably have more gay friends, colleagues, and acquaintances from their connections, more so than Edwards, while Edwards was “uncomfortable,” but Edwards is able to answer no to “sin” question.

    Comment by Pat — May 29, 2007 @ 10:01 am - May 29, 2007

  35. how you could ever construe denial by society of social security survivor benefits to her son as a death wish is beyond comprehension.

    Unfortunately, Billy, you don’t give a rat’s ass about Samuel, as you and your fellow gay leftists made clear in wishing crib death on him.

    And now what you’re making clear is that you want Heather dead so that Samuel is punished by allegedly not receiving her survivor benefits. You want a newborn baby’s mother to die just so you can cackle over political points.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2007 @ 12:05 pm - May 29, 2007

  36. I would think Mrs and Mrs Cheney, like all intelligent adults and caring parents, would be capable of making their own arrangements to see that Samuel is taken care of in the event of tragedy. Relying on the government is for imbeciles.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - May 29, 2007

  37. Or Democrats.

    What constantly amuses me is when gay liberals whine and cry about how horribly, horribly awful it is that they can’t get married and access their partner’s Social Security survivor benefits.

    But then they cluelessly exploit senior citizens to use this argument against amendments blocking domestic partnerships:

    Consider Al Breznay and Maxine Piatt, who joined the unsuccessful lawsuit to keep this proposition off the ballot. Their argument against Proposition 107, which appears in the Secretary of State’s information pamphlet, is based on real life. A retired couple on fixed income, they live together because marriage would cost Piatt a large portion of her Social Security income.

    That is because Social Security has household limits on benefits — that is, two unmarried single people receive more than do two married people, because, in virtually all cases, the household limit is LESS than the incomes of two people who are eligible for Social Security.

    Second, even if you have access to Social Security survivor benefits, they are only accessible when YOU retire (unless you are a minor child) or are disabled, and you get a choice — you take either the benefits that you yourself have earned OR the survivor benefits. If you remarry, you then only get your NEW spouse’s benefits.

    In short, gay couples are working for something that elderly couples now are abandoning in droves because the financial impact is too great.

    Social Security was written for a one-income family in which the woman was a) going to outlive the man, b) never remarry, and c) never work herself. How many gay couples does that describe?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2007 @ 1:00 pm - May 29, 2007

  38. Social Security is a sore subject with me. Thanks to the Democrats, I get to spend the rest of my life having my income confiscated to pay into a retirement system that will go bankrupt before I retire. Thanks so bloody much Harry Reid.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - May 29, 2007

  39. “Relying on the government is for imbeciles.”
    “Or Democrats.”

    What, is there a difference between the two? 😉

    Sorry – couldn’t resist.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 29, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - May 29, 2007

  40. “Unfortunately, Billy, you don’t give a rat’s ass about Samuel, as you and your fellow gay leftists made clear in wishing crib death on him. “…. you are one sick deluded puppy.

    Comment by billy — May 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - May 29, 2007

  41. Wrong answer, Billy.

    As in, there is proof of gay leftists wishing Samuel dead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - May 29, 2007

  42. #57 – And Pat, if you are still not convinced that the Dhimmicrats give a rat’s rear end about gays and civil unions, check out how Bill Clinton advocated a ban on gay marriage to John Kerry in the 2004 campaign.

    I guess this would make him and Kerry…anti-gay, right?

    Couple that with John Edwards’ admission that “those people” made him nervous, and you could safely say that the Dhimmicrat candidates in 2004 were both of the same mind. Because, you see, to them all gays are nothing but lockbox votes, like all minorities and victims.

    It is also curious that Bill Clinton still (supposedly) plays a role in his wife’s campaign. Wonder if he’s telling her the same thing….?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - May 29, 2007

  43. “As in, there is proof of gay leftists wishing Samuel dead”……..lol one wacked comment by ONE “Leftist” who probably is a regular poster to this board.anyone can post on that board… like i said, you are one sick puppy.

    Comment by billy — May 29, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - May 29, 2007

  44. 93, Yes, Peter, I do remember during the 2004 campaign where Clinton advised Kerry to back off from gay marriage and civil unions. I’m not sure how much Kerry heeded the advice, but he did seem to become quiet regarding civil unions as the election neared. Clinton believed that would help Kerry in the election. I should say that I have never been a fan of Clinton, and that was one of the reasons (the other reason is my bs meter went off the charts most of the time when Clinton spoke). He had no trouble selling out a good chunk of his base if he felt it meant more votes. Yes, Clinton is anti-gay, but less anti-gay than his predecessors. Is Kerry anti-gay? That depends. He has been supportive of other gay issues, but not supportive of gay marriage. If one believes that makes one anti-gay, the answer is yes. And, in fact, that was the stance I once took. But then I learned that many gay people, who are not self-loathing closet cases, also had compelling reasons to be against gay marriage. So I don’t believe that a person who is against gay marriage is anti-gay.

    I’m sure Bill Clinton is giving Hillary advice on the campaign, and that includes gay rights issues. Does that make Hillary Clinton anti-gay? Probably. Or at the very least I question her leadership ability since she can’t answer “no” to a simple question, when I believe she believes the answer is no.

    So anti-gay or not, the question is which candidates are less anti-gay to someone in which gay rights is important. In 2004, in my view, there was a clear choice in the general election as to which candidates were less anti-gay.

    I agree with you that Democrats see the gay vote as “lockbox” votes. And you and others have said that it hurts gay rights to blindly vote for Democrats and give money, and I agree somewhat. But as long as the Democrats are almost always less anti-gay candidates than their Republican opponents in the individual races, that will continue to be the case.

    Comment by Pat — May 29, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - May 29, 2007

  45. Clinton is anti-gay, but less anti-gay than his predecessors. oh my god, einstein lives.

    Comment by billy — May 29, 2007 @ 7:51 pm - May 29, 2007

  46. So Pat, in other words you are saying that even though both parties appear to be anti-gay, you feel more comfortable pulling the lever for a candidate with a (D) after their name because they MIGHT be more sympathetic to your views?

    That is the textbook example of insanity. You are constantly doing the same thing in hopes that the results will be different. They put people in padded cells for that type of stuff.

    Look at how blacks have been voting since the 1960s – solid Dhimmicrat. Yet they still complain that they are not “fully” equal, thanks to rabble-rousers and poverty pimps like Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Mfume et al who encourage them to become dependent upon the government because “whitey owes them a living.”

    These people have been putting (D) on their ballots for forty years, and they still consider themselves “unequal.” I’m sorry, but if you have been voting the same way for 40 years and things haven’t changed, then you are either totally blinded by partisanship or just plain stupid.

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 30, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - May 30, 2007

  47. this is a textbook example of insanity…”When President Bush stood on the victory stage several years ago after being elected into office by values voters, Mary Cheney was on stage as well with her lesbian lover, Heather Poe. It was a slap in the face to the values voters who had just elected the duo into office. That wound has never healed”…..just goes to show how not to critically think.

    Comment by billy — May 30, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - May 30, 2007

  48. Why did you post the picture of the Cheneys? I thought most of you weren’t into, didn’t need official recognition from government? Why make a big to-do about the birth of this kid and involve at least two people in the searching and posting of the photo?

    Because recognition matters. And any of you that want to claim otherwise, I laugh at you….

    Comment by sean — May 30, 2007 @ 5:08 pm - May 30, 2007

  49. #96, Peter, I’m sure some time in a padded cell could help me and I have my plain stupid moments, but I don’t agree with your other conclusions. First, for President, I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats. Some independents too, when I couldn’t stomach either, like in 1992 and 2000. And locally, since my county went from virtually all Republican to virtually all Democratic in the past 10 years, I vote (R) sometimes to even out the corruption (both parties thrive in corruption here). Regarding gay rights, if it comes to that, because things are about even on other issues, like I said above, almost always, the Democratic candidate is stronger (or less anti-gay, if you prefer) than the Republicans candidate. I am not talking about “might” be sympathetic, but on their voting record. So if one candidate is supportive on 80% of gay issues and the other is supportive on 20%, I think the choice is clear. I personally don’t think that is irrational. If more Republicans were voted in than Democrats, I honestly don’t see how that would improve things. In fact, if the last Congress had a huge Republican majority, FMA would have passed. And if 38 states had huge Republican majorities in their legislatures, we would have an Amendment 28 stating “a marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    The other thing is that up until 2006, I saw improvement, albeit incrementally, in support of gay rights by Democrats. Republicans too, but, in my view, they remained far behind. Even Clinton, who I disagreed with when he signed DADT and DOMA, was less anti-gay than his predecessors. Why? because before the 1990s, it wasn’t even thought that that SSM would happen. By the 1990s, it now was seen as a possibility, saw a bill was passed that Clinton signed. I’m guessing that any President before Clinton would have signed such a bill. But as bad as it was, a simple majority vote in Congress will repeal it. With DADT, as unequal as it is, it did allow homosexuals legally to serve in the military. So some improvement there. Have things progressed with the current President? Not only did Bush not propose to Congress to repeal DOMA, he wanted an amendment. No progress there. And I haven’t heard for a call by Bush to replace DADT with full equality in the military.

    I went off track here, but consider this analogy. Suppose someone’s big issue is small government. Republicans generally favor smaller government than Democrats. But despite Republican candidates call for smaller government, it keeps on getting larger, including with Bush in his first four years. But still not as bad as it would be for Democrats. Now Bush runs against Kerry, who would probably have government grow even larger. (If you disagree with my characterization here with big government, then at least consider hypothetically that my characterization is correct.) Is it irrational for this person to vote for Bush? Is he totally blinded by partisanship or just plain stupid, as you say?

    I am not so blind to see what the Democrats are doing, especially now. I see the pandering or avoidance that many of the Democratic candidates are doing. And almost all the literature/junk mail I receive from DNC mentions very little, or as usually the case, nothing on gay rights. But except for Rudy Giuliani, who has done some pandering and slipped a little on gay rights, the rest of the Republican candidates are rather weak on gay rights.

    So what to do for the next election. I don’t see Democrats improving on gay rights any more. And as long as the Republican candidate doesn’t want to turn back the clock on gay rights, then it will come down to other issues. BTW, I am really not just a gay rights issue voter. It’s just that I don’t think one party is much better than the other on other issues overall.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 1:10 am - May 31, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.