It would happen on a day when I’m running errands and thinking about things other than politics when one of my political heroes says something which shows why I so respect him.

And how wonderful it is that we gay Republicans can in one week hear a man deliver a speech which becomes a rallying cry for conservatives, then barely two weeks later, break ranks with the party on gay marriage.  Rare that we gay conservatives see a man so outspoken on issues near and dear to our hearts.  As most of you know by now, since the news broke while I was away from a computer, in response to a question at the National Press club, the former Vice President said he believed marriage should be a state issue:

And I think that’s the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don’t have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that . . . .

Thank you, Mr. Cheney.

And we know that he has dared speak out because, well, not only he is a smart man, but he’s also a good Dad.  He would likely not have spoken out if he did not have a lesbian daughter.

While gay groups regularly fault Mary Cheney for not being the activist they believe she should be, she, simply by being herself, has done more to advance understanding of gay people.  With her Dad, beloved on the right, publicly expressing his support for a federal approach to same-sex marriage, many conservatives may reconsider their views on same-sex marriage.  After all, they’re more likely to listen to a man they respect than those who insult their political confrères.   Cheney has credibility with the people whom most need to be moved if Prop 8 is to be overturned.

When will gay activists thank Mary for bringing her Dad around on this issue?

In her own quiet way, Mary Cheney has accomplished a lot more than the activists who take to the streets shouting left-wing slogans.  For our part, we say to her, “Thank you”

UPDATED: LAST CHANCE IS NOW. Deadline is June 1 (tonight!) at 9PM Eastern Time… I’ve extended the deadline time.

I can’t believe I am able to do this so quickly after our 2,000,000th visitor. But we are rapidly closing in on 3 million… so it is time for another contest!

I also happened to have accidently purchased two DVD’s of the HBO miniseries John Adams from Amazon. I hit the button twice. But my mistake is your win!

Beginning today and ending on June 1st at 5PM 9PM Eastern Time, I will accept dates and times as to when GayPatriot will get its 3,000,000th unique visitor.  The winner will get a DVD of John Adams.

Remember:  Date & Time. Pithy comments are also welcome, as always.

EMAIL: BRUCE@GAYPATRIOT.ORG

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Due to a number of obligations, I may not be able to blog until later in the day (as in early evening GayPatriot blog time), but before I get to other pressing matters, wanted to throw out two thoughts on unrelated topics.

First, under what authorization is the President spending taxpayer money to invest in/bailout GM?  Doesn’t the Constitution mandate that Congress must approve all federal expenditures? I recall that back in 1979, Jimmy Carter couldn’t unilaterally bailout Chrysler and had to go through Congress, though I recall that ill-fated Democrat asked for far less than his latest incarnation is requesting.

Second, American Elephant offers a great comment to my post wondering if gay Republicans should boycott gay confabs (until they start including us in the program):

One expects, from their name, a group seeking some sort of middle ground. But of course its nothing of the sort, its a group that has no intention of budging an inch from their position.

Not that there’s anything wrong with forming a group to push a political agenda, but its important to note how consistently dishonest they are about everything.

Yeah, how can they expect to “meet in the middle” if they’re not willing to budge one inch from their left-wing rhetoric and with a speakers’ roster that tilts to the left, left even of the left-wing “center” of today’s Democratic party.

Even though the MSM drooled over the Obama’s $24,000 Broadway date to NYC on Saturday, the fact of the matter is the Obama’s are millionaires and they used taxpayer funds to go on the junket.  UPDATE:  Or was it actually $70,000?

In addition, using the website GreenStudentU.com, I have calculated the Obama’s “carbon footprint” for their trip.  I believe this is a VERY conservative estimate.

GreenStudentU estimates that three planes flying to/from DC to NYC used approx 0.4 tons of CO2. This is probably a low estimate as they were private planes and the carbon footprint was spread over fewer people than a commercial airline.

Then I estimated the carbon footprint of at least a 6 car Lincoln Navigator motorcade to/from The White House and Andrews AFB, and then the necessary driving in and around New York City.   Motorcade’s carbon footprint?  0.24 tons of CO2.

Total Obama Broadway Cost To The Environment?  0.63 tons of CO2 for less than a day.  (As a reference, I calculated my home’s carbon footprint for a year:   3.82 tons of CO2 – for a year.)

If you are as furious as I am about the Obama’s carelessly using taxpayer money for a Broadway junket, please sign my petition to ask for the full cost of the trip to be refunded to We, The People.

Thank you for your time.  It will be interesting to see the next stunt that “Ovita” pulls with taxpayer money.  Oh yeah, $30B more today for General Motors — I forgot that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Perhaps, it’s because most of our readers know us only as guys who blog primarily about politics that they assume politics is all we do.  And sometimes, a lot of news relates to the things we blog about, it sometimes seems that way, to me at least.

And yet, Bruce loves his dogs and is fascinated by the explorations of Lewis & Clark (and I think I do detect a budding interest in NASCAR) while I love mythology, history, movies and literature and am devoted to my nieces and nephews (and wondering why their parents refuse to bring them to Southern California so I can take them to Disneyland).

I had had a whole list of topics I wished to address this wish, from dating to monogamy to acting to writing, family literature and movies that I had wished to address this past week, but because of the press of obligations surrounding the California Supreme Court’s decision on Proposition 8, found myself devoting the better part of last week to topics political and judicial.  Perhaps, it’s the reason I so focused on the Yard Sale later in the week, in my actions as well as my thoughts. It may not have been fascinating per se (as I claimed), but just that it wasn’t politics.

The Yard Sale even gave me a new idea for a screenplay (actually several ideas based on one notion, a buyer finding an intriguing item in a piece of clothing she buys).  So, I played with that idea–as well as several others all weekend.  Of the notes I scribbled, most deal with subjects other than politics, but alas only a few (but definitely more than none) dealt with my much delayed dissertation.

Perhaps because I had just blogged about acting on Friday and participated in a Yard Sale organized by an actress, I have also been thinking much about actors and acting this weekend.  And having watched so many acting friends work so hard for so little reward, I have frequently been impressed with their determination against almost unimaginable odds. (more…)

I’d always admired former House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill for returning to Massachusetts after he stepped down as Speaker of the House.  That move showed that he saw himself as serving the people who first elected to Congress rather than as a part of a permanent Washington establishment.  While an accomplished politicians, politics was not all there was to this very liberal man.

Indeed, the last picture I recall seeing of the Democrat was enjoying a Red Sox game with his grandchildren shortly after his retirement.

I’ve often wondered how many of his fellow partisans follow his example when they lose (or otherwise leave) office.  While the first Republican to succeed O’Neill as Speaker seems to have made the nation’s capital his home, I’ve often thought that a greater percentage of former Republican lawmakers return to their jurisdictions than do Democrats.  It’s just a thought, but given our philosophy that government should play only a limited role in our lives.

But, then again, given how Republicans of late have lost sight of that philosophy, maybe they remain in the nation’s capital, still sucking at the political teat.

It would be interesting to see if anyone had ever studied this.  For now, I’ll just put the thought out there for discussion — and perhaps some diligent reader can google to see if there’s any date to support (or dismiss) my notion.

(BTW, this idea crossed my mind as I was pondering the post which should lead this on the first Monday of June, hence the absence of links and the question mark in the title.  It’s more a question than a conclusion.)