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. Mazal Tov to the whole Cheney family, to Samuel David for being born to what will prove to be wonderful parents. To the grandparents who will love him like his 5 cousins, and to his cousins, who now will have a new cousin to play with.

    The left will vilify this event, simply because it is a Republican family , that is doing the correct thing -being a loving family – regardless of the fact that Samuel has two mothers.

    The right will vilify them because he has two mothers, they were rather that he not be born at all.

    And many of us are simply very happy for them, for gay couples who can see this as an example. Proud of a vice President who won’t comprimise his core beliefs – regardless of where the critizism is coming from.

    Comment by Leah — May 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am - May 24, 2007

  2. Well said, Leah.

    And if anyone wants to see GLDS (Gay Leftist Derangement Syndrome) in action, I’m tracking the responses of the mooniest of the moonbats over yonder.

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

  3. bs. he’s a hypocrite and an evil man. and history proves it.

    Comment by billy — May 24, 2007 @ 10:21 am - May 24, 2007

  4. Ah another thoughtful point of view from a leftist lower caser, provided with the usual amount of facts to back up his central smear argument.

    I wish the Cheneys well, all of them.

    Comment by V the K — May 24, 2007 @ 10:48 am - May 24, 2007

  5. #1 – Leah, right on.

    #3 – billy, don’t be a zero/don’t be a fool with your life.

    (Apologies to 1970s singing sensation Bo Donaldson And The Heywoods for corrupting their lyrics.)

    http://users.cis.net/sammy/bllyhero.htm

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 11:19 am - May 24, 2007

  6. Congratulations to Mary & Heather for their newborn son. Don’t listen to the wingnuts on both sides, both of you will make fine moms.
    Peter H.: Cute paraphrasing from one of the worst songs of 1974 (first place goes to “Seasons In The Sun”). Jukebox From Hell fare for both those songs.

    Comment by Jimbo — May 24, 2007 @ 11:29 am - May 24, 2007

  7. Hey Jimbo, thanks for the kudos. I couldn’t resist the analogy. ;-)

    The year 1974 must have been one for the highest collective depression of the USA. You had those two awful songs (in fact, “Seasons” was played at my frat brother’s funeral and I’ve avoided it since then), Sonny and Cher’s divorce, Watergate etc.

    No wonder disco became popular!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 11:47 am - May 24, 2007

  8. and saddam was a nice grandpa too.

    Comment by billy — May 24, 2007 @ 11:58 am - May 24, 2007

  9. No billy, Saddam wasn’t a nice grandpa. He had the fathers of some of his grandchildren murdered.

    Get it? Get the tiny unimportant difference there?

    Now what I came to say – Everyone with a strong stomach should visit NDT’s link in #2 and, from there, some of the garbage specimens he’s collecting. They have to be seen to be believed.

    I mean, I’m used to thinking of Left gay activists as hypocritical, hateful and troubled, but… wow. Do some of those comments ever prove it!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 24, 2007 @ 12:30 pm - May 24, 2007

  10. billy, I normally simply ignore you moonbats, but you deserve one.

    Did your mother never teach you that when you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all. Or are you too wrapped up in your own self hatred to ever think of anyone else.

    Vice President Cheney has just done an amazing thing. He posted an official picture of himself, his wife and his newest grandson. He never did that with the other five grandchildren. Why? Because Samuel is special. Cheney is sending a very loud message out to America and the world. His daughter and partner are family, he is proud of Samuel. Actions speak louder than words, and he is letting the world know that for him, this newest addition is a blessing and yes, even a model for what American families should be like.

    This will change more hearts and minds than all of the drivel coming out of the so called gay rights movements.

    And billy, if your mother never did, consider this the repremand you should have gotten years ago. I don’t care that you are gay, or that you hate Republicans. Treat people with respect, and if you really don’t like them, keep it to yourself, your comment reflects poorly on you, not on the Cheneys.

    Comment by Leah — May 24, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - May 24, 2007

  11. #9 – That’s nothing, ILC. You should see what John Edwards says about gays in general.

    Talk about hateful, hypocritical and troubled. And that’s just their candidates alone!

    Frankly, Edwards has room to talk – Mr. Pink Sapphire Salon himself. I know drag queens who primp less than he does.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 12:54 pm - May 24, 2007

  12. #10 – Leah, I think I love you!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 12:55 pm - May 24, 2007

  13. ILC et. al., it may not be universal, but a common thread among most (though not all) of the gay men I have known has been they had very poor relationships with their fathers growing up. And there seems to be a strong correlation that the worse was the relationship with the father, the worse the neuroses in the son.

    Bush and Cheney both come across as strong fatherly figures, especially Cheney. And I wonder if that explains the deranged hatred of so many on the gay left toward them. (Whereas Kerry and Edwards just come across as aging metrosexual sugar daddies.)

    Comment by V the K — May 24, 2007 @ 1:01 pm - May 24, 2007

  14. Hey, I like the Cheneys as much as the next GOPer. But to argue that their uncompromising love for this special and newest grandchild should get them some respect with the GayLeftBorg is to miss the nature of the GLBTs’ visceral hatred for Cheney and conservatives and GOPers. They could no more acknowledge his class act of grandparenting (and parenting of Mary) than they could anything Bush did –even if he repealed DADTDHDP and DOMA in a RoseGarden ceremony with only gay journalists and HRC leaders in attendance. Their hatred of conservatives and GOPers are based in political kinship with the FarLeftFringe in the DNC… not in gay rights. “Gay rights” is only the mechanism the GLBTs use to get into the Democrat party.

    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 say, leave ‘em in peace… let them grow as a family… and don’t ask the impossible.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 24, 2007 @ 1:52 pm - May 24, 2007

  15. It gets worse, people….much worse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - May 24, 2007

  16. Congratulations to all the Cheneys.

    While I am more than willing to grant her and her family her/their privacy, I’m not sure I can reconcile her very public book (using her father’s office to promote the chronicling of her life) while asking that the boundaries of her private life be respected and her private choices be honored. Had she always maintained a quiet, low profile — answering her nasty, leftist critics with the repeated request of respect for her privacy — then I would have no misgivings about defending her. However, it cannot be denied that she has used her position to blur the boundaries she apparently believes are clearly drawn. That she is a public figure by virtue of her father’s decisions is no fault of hers and thus she is not fair game for public scrutiny and punditry by that standard alone. But the moment she profits from her father’s decisions with written statements (especially when about her supposedly private life in a political family), then I can no longer defend her privacy — because it no longer exists.

    And I do think that “…the example he sets for all parents of gay children” is putting a bit too much pressure on the VP.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 24, 2007 @ 2:28 pm - May 24, 2007

  17. billy: That’s Nancy Legosi and Harry Reid’s schtick..

    In Iraq right now, al qaida is planning on performming acts of torture and overwhelming violence in order to compell Congress to press for a withdrawel. They have said this themselves. Iran is also going to be working towards the same goal.

    The Democrats have sent the signal of failure to the Muslims. What Democrats dont understand or dont care about is that the Muslim culture despises weaknesses..it invites their full rate.

    So it’s people of your ilk that will be responsible for all the atrocities we’re about to see.

    Comment by Vince P — May 24, 2007 @ 4:14 pm - May 24, 2007

  18. Peter, Thanks for the compliment, 26 years as a mother. Yes my 3 sons are very outspoken – but very respectful as well.

    HH, I don’t think Mary was looking for privacy at this time. I think she realizes the power of her fathers’ visual statement. The whole Cheney family is strong enough to take the heat, and in a few days it will all die down. Mary, Heather and Samuel will go on living their private lives.
    Meanwhile, I have no doubt, that for many average, good, middle of the road Americans, seeing the picture of the Vice President proudly showing off his grandson, will have an impact.
    Of course many gays are not looking for that kind of normative lifestyle, but for those who are, this may help make their neighbors just a little more comfortable with them.

    Comment by Leah — May 24, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - May 24, 2007

  19. “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.“

    UMM, YOU JUST DID. AND THEN YOU CONTINUE TO DO SO…

    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.”

    SPEAKING OF PARENTS AND GAY, WHERE ARE THE GAY PARENTS OF THE BABY IN THE PICTURE? WHY ARE MARY AND HEATHER MISSING?

    Most importantly, I love how you don’t see the disconnect between the photo put out by the White House and Mary’s line about babies not being props in political debates? Why put a photo out at all? Of grandparents or straight parents in addition to gay parents? The attempt to reject the political reality is just another example of in-the-closet-gay-conservative politics: keep it all quiet, in the closet, nothing here, keep moving, look at those anti-gay folks on the other side of the world and pay no attention to the absence of the mothers of this child…

    Sad.

    Comment by jimmy — May 24, 2007 @ 5:41 pm - May 24, 2007

  20. LOL….if this were being hidden, jimmy, they wouldn’t have put out the picture in the first place.

    Like I’ve pointed out on my site, you and your fellow gay Democrats and leftists have made it completely and utterly clear that you want this baby dead and his family devastated.

    That nicely puts into perspective your criticisms.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - May 24, 2007

  21. not to worry jimmy, these psuedophags are just as deluded as their espoused enemies. got your email (or spam) from the guy upstairs lately???

    Comment by billy — May 24, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - May 24, 2007

  22. “so, what ya gonna do?? invade the entire muslim world??”

    No, but if I had the chance I would have nuked them back to the Stone Age. It’s called PRE-EMPTION. Kill them before they kill us.

    It has worked, you know. Why do you think the A-bombs were dropped on Japan?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - May 24, 2007

  23. So how is the Right reacting to Mary and Heather’s happy news?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838677/posts

    Who planted the seed? This is just wrong to do to a child. IMO … I am very glad he’s a boy. At least he won’t see them as a role model. … Lesbians are not known for their long relationships. Probably this boy will know many mommies … What a sad way for a beautiful baby to enter the world. Here’s wishing him a Daddy, someday … The kid going to grow up with no dad and you have no problem with such a selfish act? … You have to reject morality to accept homosexual parents in the first place. … They surely love their daughter, yet cannot be happy with her life style.

    … and that’s just from page 1.

    Using NDT logic, we are forced to conclude that all right-wingers everywhere agree with these sentiments.

    Comment by vaara — May 24, 2007 @ 6:38 pm - May 24, 2007

  24. Well I did notice there was no call for death.. no wishing disease.. no wishing for physical harm.

    That statement is downright enlightened if you compare it to something the Left would write.

    Comment by Vince P — May 24, 2007 @ 6:59 pm - May 24, 2007

  25. Let’s see. Righties regret the boy will not a father figure. Lefties want the baby to die of crib death.

    Yeah, total moral equivalence there.

    Comment by V the K — May 24, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - May 24, 2007

  26. #22:

    WHY ARE MARY AND HEATHER MISSING?

    I was wondering the same thing Jimmy. I’m sure it’s not because the Cheney’s have anything against being photographed with their daughter’s partner.

    Comment by Ian S — May 24, 2007 @ 7:33 pm - May 24, 2007

  27. So all of a sudden, a single demented commenter on Joe.My.God becomes “the left.”

    In any event, the FR thread demonstrates that Mary and Heather have a lot of work to do when it comes to convincing the Republican base that gay people can form stable, loving families.

    Comment by vaara — May 24, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - May 24, 2007

  28. #28:

    Lefties want the baby to die of crib death.

    You know nothing about who posted that. It could easily be someone on the right, a sort of “strawman sockpuppet” trying to discredit all leftists by making a hateful comment that looks like it came from a progressive. Such a sockpuppet might then trumpet the hateful comment across the Internet to get more exposure. If the sockpuppet was actually a blogger, the “outrage” could of course be served up as raw meat to attract traffic to the sockpuppet’s blog.

    Comment by Ian S — May 24, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - May 24, 2007

  29. Leah, I’ve always thought that Mary’s relationship with the media as compared to her (and her father’s) requests for privacy as an attempt at trying to have it both ways. I agree with you that the Cheneys are strong enough to withstand the criticism from extremists on both sides (although I’m not sure the criticism from the left is leftist extremism — it quite honestly seems par for the course). However, that they understand the power of their images and to use them for whatever their public purpose is hypocritical, i.e. when compared to the statement that Samuel is not a prop. Even to discuss the cultural advantages such images provide can hardly be construed as disinterested and objective, just as it is to use the birth as an opportunity to concoct the crudest possible ‘humor’.

    Except privately, I suppose the Cheneys are in something of a no-win situation and even the most factual commentary limited to the mere reporting of the birth itself would be seen as political by some. Whatever my specific misgivings, I wish them well and I’ll bet Samuel is one lucky boy.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 24, 2007 @ 9:45 pm - May 24, 2007

  30. Leah, one more thing: The first version was better! :o)

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 24, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - May 24, 2007

  31. HH, I don’t like the word hypocrit being used with every misstep a person makes. Mary agreed to help out her fathers campaign for two reasons, she loves him, and she belives in many of the same things he does. She knew there would be a price to pay, and pay she has.
    At first I thought the birth had gone unannounced, since I thought the baby was due in March. Once Samuel was born, I think the Cheney’s did the right thing – is it sending a message? You bet it is. My guess is that by the weekend this will all be forgotten, we will have ‘moved on’.

    It won’t change minds on the left, nor will it change minds on the far right. It is a strong message to all those parents who can’t accept who and what their children are. Mary would have gone ahead with her life regardless of her parents. Her parents are showing the world the rewards of standing by your child. I have never heard a grandparent regret another grandchild. Sadly for many gays, even when they have children, there is no grandparent to share in the joy.

    As to my first comment, it probably got caught in the moderator, which is why I toned it down.

    Comment by Leah — May 24, 2007 @ 10:52 pm - May 24, 2007

  32. #35:

    She knew there would be a price to pay, and pay she has.

    Oh, please! In what way has Mary paid a price? You sound like Laura Bush and her whiny lament about how no one suffers more than she and Duhbya do over Iraq.

    Comment by Ian S — May 24, 2007 @ 11:52 pm - May 24, 2007

  33. God forbid if something happens to Mary C. what happens to the daughter?
    What rights does Heather Poe have?

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 12:26 am - May 25, 2007

  34. Using NDT logic, we are forced to conclude that all right-wingers everywhere agree with these sentiments.

    Unfortunately for that logic, the very post written here makes it clear that gay conservatives and several “right wingers” disagree with those sentiments.

    But, vaara, I notice this; none of you apologists for the left have said that wanting Mary and Heather’s baby to die of SIDS is wrong.

    Instead, you’ve come up with myriad excuses as to why NOT to condemn the remark.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2007 @ 1:55 am - May 25, 2007

  35. God forbid if something happens to Mary C. what happens to the daughter?
    What rights does Heather Poe have?

    WTF business is it of yours?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 25, 2007 @ 1:58 am - May 25, 2007

  36. #38 Good point. 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.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 5:28 am - May 25, 2007

  37. Speaking of politicos and kids, Silky Pony is a creepy weirdo.

    Kerry had qualms about choosing Mr. Edwards to be his presidential running mate in 2004, but grew “even queasier” after Mr. Edwards said he was going to share a story with Mr. Kerry he had never told anyone else — that after his son, Wade, had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home and hugged his body and promised that he would do all he could to make life better for people.

    “Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 7:29 am - May 25, 2007

  38. #38 – none of you apologists for the left have said that wanting Mary and Heather’s baby to die of SIDS is wrong.

    Well, for what little it’s probably worth, I shan’t be an apologist and I’ll call a spade a spade in this case. Such statements or “wishes” are vile, and under no circumstances I can imagine would such a thing ever be appropriate. I read some of those same comments, NDT, and they made my skin crawl.

    Comment by Mike — May 25, 2007 @ 8:34 am - May 25, 2007

  39. 28, V the K, I agree with you about the moral inequivalence of the comments in question. But some of the comments in 26 are a bit uglier than regretting the child will not have a father figure. Of course, not as ugly as wishing death on a child, but repugnant nonetheless.

    Anyway, the comment wishing death on Mary’s child is reprehensible and inexcusable. And the person who wrote it should be ashamed, and needs to reflect and see if he/she is really a human being. And many of the other comments are vicious and disgusting as well.

    The ugly comments coming from both the right and left, whether they reflect the person’s true opinion or not should be condemned. And we shouldn’t excuse any of them by saying one comment is worse than the other.

    Comment by Pat — May 25, 2007 @ 9:45 am - May 25, 2007

  40. Unfortunately for that logic, the very post written here makes it clear that gay conservatives and several “right wingers” disagree with those sentiments.

    But, vaara, I notice this; none of you apologists for the left have said that wanting Mary and Heather’s baby to die of SIDS is wrong.

    NDT, that’s fine. You’ve made it known that some presumably vile lefty made a comment about wishing death for Samuel, and some of the other ugly comments. Some of us on the left here have condemned it. Now some ugly comments are exhibited coming apparently from the right. Yes, I would agree that most of the conservatives on this site disagree with those sentiments. But I haven’t seen criticism of those remarks. If you want to say that the death comment is more egregious and deserved to be condemned more than the ugly righty comments, fair enough. But persons not condemning that comment should not be construed for excusing the comment any more than not condemning the righty comments should be construed for excusing those comments.

    Comment by Pat — May 25, 2007 @ 10:02 am - May 25, 2007

  41. Leah, it’s important to point out hypocrisy when and where it exists, especially concerning important issues. Is the privacy of Mary Cheney an important issue? No, not really, but then why are we discussing her family at all, presenting the Cheneys as a good example for all to follow? Is Al Gore’s lifestyle inconsistent with his public statements re. the environment and how we should all live? Like it or not, he’s influential and I believe we ignore him at our peril; pointing out his hypocrisies can have the effect of innoculating the fence-sitting public to his pronouncements. The haircuts of John Edwards are certainly unimportant — except he’s made the gap between rich and poor a centerpiece of his campaign and has thus legitimized the discussion (and I suspect in a way that was deliberate, as if flaunting his wealth affirms his elitism in a way that his white trash to riches story could never do as efficiently nor as convincingly).

    Republicans have stressed the value of family again and again. This is just fine with me, but any time a particular family is held up as exemplary (in the literal sense), I get a bad taste in my mind. The birth of a baby is a wonderful thing. Let’s celebrate his life and entrance into the world without what I believe to be the undue pressue of an onerous ideal.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 25, 2007 @ 10:14 am - May 25, 2007

  42. Okay Pat, I’ll be the first to say that I condemn any and all anti-gay comments from the Dobson wing of the far-right lunatic fringe. Happy now?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 10:31 am - May 25, 2007

  43. #43:

    Anyway, the comment wishing death on Mary’s child is reprehensible and inexcusable.

    That is absolutely true. But I still wonder just who this commenter really is. I’m not convinced the individual is a leftie. I find it awfully convenient that such a hateful comment appears and it quickly gets disseminated around the internet as an example of how evil lefties are. Conservative activists have proven themselves adept at dishonesty, cheating and dirty tricks in general – just look at the current administration!

    Comment by Ian S — May 25, 2007 @ 10:53 am - May 25, 2007

  44. Ian, you make a good point. We really don’t know who made such a hateful comment, and what the exact motive behind it was. But I would also say that conservatives don’t corner the market on dishonesty, cheating, and dirty tricks. I am as happy as any other left leaning person that the Democrats regained control of Congress. But they are falling short in the integrity and honesty department unfortunately.

    46, Peter, I’ve had happier moments, but that will do. ;-)

    Comment by Pat — May 25, 2007 @ 11:19 am - May 25, 2007

  45. Aw, geez. Every time the Puffington Host posts something about Cheney, or Tony Snow, or some other Bush figure having an illness than their boards are over-run with user comments wishing them death. The death of Jerry Falwell brought out nasty vitriol on the left. Nothing like that was heard on the right when, for example, Liz Edwards announced her cancer.

    Deranged hate is such a constant on the left, it is by no means inconceivable that a lefty would express a desire for the child of a Republican to die of crib death.

    I guess some people’s Magical Partisan Blinders not only block out the hypocrisy and corruption on the left, but also the hatred as well.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 11:33 am - May 25, 2007

  46. By the way, I notice that the owner of the blog left the ‘crib death’ comment up, and out of about 2 dozen subsequent comments, only one was critical of the crib death comment and that was posted *after* NDT called attention to it.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 11:41 am - May 25, 2007

  47. #50 – And VdaK, I am still waiting for our local libtrolls to blast John Edwards for saying that he is uncomfortable around gays.

    Given his metrosexual ways, Mr. Pink Sapphire Salon sounds as if he’s afraid of becoming aroused by one of us and is in denial about his sexuality. You know, it’s called the “Tom Cruise Effect.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - May 25, 2007

  48. HH, of your three examples I see Al Gore as being hypocritical – he preaches one way and behaves the opposite. Edwards talks about two Americas, how he grew up in the poor one – which gives him the ‘right’ to comment on it. But he doesn’t deny being part of rich American. Of course I don’t understand why such a wealthy man needs his campaign to pay for his haircuts, but that is a different question.

    Mary Cheney knew, when she agreed to work for her father, that she and her sexuality would be dragged into the public arena. Problem here is, that Cheney has stated publicly that he differs with the Administration on the issue of Gay Marriage and rights. So he is called a hypocrit because he down’t tow the party line.
    But unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are actually more open minded – you can be the Republican Vice President, and disagree on issues. He is not being hypocritical to his own beliefs when he acknowledges gay rights, and yes uses his daughter and now grandson to show where he stands.

    Personally I wish Giuliani would simply come out and say he is pro-abortion. It may sink his campaign, it may not, but it will show that the big tent party is actually the conservative one.

    Comment by Leah — May 25, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - May 25, 2007

  49. I’ve said in other contexts (and am adding it now) that I condemn any and all anti-gay comments from the Dobson types.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 12:55 pm - May 25, 2007

  50. #53: I’ll condemn real anti-gay comments, but I don’t consider it anti-gay to note that it’s better for a boy to have a father in the home than to be raised by two women. I think that’s compassion for the child, not hatred toward the parents.

    And that’s not even saying it’s a bad environment, just not the best environment.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - May 25, 2007

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. #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

  54. 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

  55. 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

  56. 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

  57. 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

  58. #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

  59. 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

  60. 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

  61. 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

  62. 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

  63. 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

  64. 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

  65. 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

  66. “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

  67. 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

  68. #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

  69. 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

  70. #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

  71. 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

  72. 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

  73. 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

  74. 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

  75. 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

  76. #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

  77. #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

  78. 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

  79. #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

  80. #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

  81. #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

  82. 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

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

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

  84. 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

  85. 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

  86. 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

  87. 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

  88. 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

  89. “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

  90. “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

  91. 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

  92. #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

  93. “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

  94. 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

  95. 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

  96. 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

  97. 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

  98. 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

  99. #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.