Fuck yeah! (Cheney on gay marriages)

[threemae]

Fuck yeah!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/po.../25cheney.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3596732.stm

Certainly this administration has been responsible for a lot of stupid asshatery over the last few years, and Cheney is no exception, but finally, thank god, a member of it has decided to make public comments against the administration's goals of denying full civil rights to gay relationships. And so, today's fuck yeah goes to Dick Cheney:

Originally Posted by VP Dick Cheney

freedom means freedom for everyone...into any kind of relationship they want to

The remarks are actually much more powerful in sound, so if anyone could locate a clip of him actually saying this, I would appreciate that.

[Liberal]

Fair enough, but beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Fair enough, but beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Right, and he's now apparently living in Rome.....

[threemae]

This is why I really want a link to the audio. I heard it on my public radio station yesterday on the BBC world, and it was very sincere.

Cheney stated that his views would have no effect upon the administrations policy of seeking a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage, and that those views were his own. So, I don't view this as a ploy to get votes from gay people. I do think that it is a sincere statement of loyalty to his own daughters over political affiliation.

[Berkut]

I'm curious why you chose The Pit for a post praising someone.

I've noticed The Pit has almost become the default forum for posts relating to politics, which is somewhat understandable considering how heated the discussions get. I don't get this one though.

I'm not trying to go all junior mod on you, I'm just wondering.

[nonpolar]

If Cheyne's daughter was straight ,he would be singing different tune.

[John Mace]

So, Cheney has a personal view that differs somewhat from Bush's. BFD. He still has to tow the line of the administration-- which is what he should do unless he wants to resign.

I'm extrapolating here, but I think it would be a mistake to construe this as support for gay marriage at a state level. I expect that Cheny WOULD support a state constitution amendment in Wyoming (or any state where he's a resident) to ban gay marriage.

He's not so much championing gay marriage, as he is championing states' rights. But he clearly would champion the right of a state to vote for gay marriage and not be overruled by the feds.

[Liberal]

Pet peeve: It's toe the line — the idea being that you have to line up just like all the other little soldiers by putting your toes exactly on the imaginary line where they're all putting theirs. Sorry for the interruption.

[AHunter3]

I'm no Dick Cheney fan, but credit where credit is due. I think it was brave of him to say that, and not without risks (for every batch of fence-sitters in Nevada or Maine who are slightly more inclined to vote Bush/Cheney because of this statement, there could be a religious brimstone preacher in Missouri who will be slightly more inclined to tell the god-fearin' to just stay home and sit this one out, etc)

[Liberal]

Might keep an eye on WBC. Cheney could be on their website soon. If Fred Phelp's condemns him to hell, then I'll agree that he can't be entirely bad.

[The Long Road]

Originally Posted by nonpolar

If Cheyne's daughter was straight ,he would be singing different tune.

The same goes for anyone who supports an issue because they have a personal stake. What the fuck did Christopher Reeve do to support paralyzed people before he became one? If you are going to bitch about someone having a certain opinion on an issue or being involved in something only because it directly effects them, you better get ready for a lot of typing.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by nonpolar

If Cheyne's daughter was straight ,he would be singing different tune.

Talk out of your ass much? You have no way of knowing this, especially in light of the fact that there are MANY conservatives who are against a federal constitutional amendment.

[YWalker]

Eh. I don't really see it as much cause for celebration.

In other words, he says "By the way, I believe you should have equal rights. But I still am second banana to a man who thinks we should amend the constitution in order to make sure that no state can make a law which guarantees you this right, and I'm not going to do a darned thing to rock the boat."

[cher3]

That's right. He got caught between fake family values and real family values and came down on the right side, but with as little actual commitment as possible.

[nonpolar]

He tries to look nice and tolerant ,guess why? november elections are coming ever closer.
Old windbag could loose his job and might be even send to Hague to be tried for War Crimes.

[Dr. Lao]

I don't doubt that Cheney is being sincere. I also don't doubt that this entirely in line with the Republican strategy. Will they double cross gays at the first opportunity? In a New York second.

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I'm curious why you chose The Pit for a post praising someone.

Note the thread title... I think he just wanted to say "fuck". The actual descriptive title was just added as a parenthetical.

[Otto]

I'm not sure why you felt a second thread on the exact same topic was warranted but I'll say the same thing here as I did there. Cheney deserves no praise for this stance after shilling for the amendment when Bush declared his support.

[nonpolar]

Or maybe Cheney has only few weeks left to live (problems with his heart are well known)and he is realy sincere.

[furlibusea]

It is the first time I have respected the man. It won't change my vote, but gives me a little hope that possibly the right wing may eventualy loose its strangle hold on the republican party.

[furlibusea]

Either that or there is a rats and sinking ships thing going on.

[nonpolar]

Maybe Cheney is a gay ?

[Zebra]

Funny,


I thought Cheney played 'bad cop' while George played 'good cop'.


I guess they decided to trade places on this one.

[SolGrundy]

Originally Posted by threemae

Certainly this administration has been responsible for a lot of stupid asshatery over the last few years, and Cheney is no exception, but finally, thank god, a member of it has decided to make public comments against the administration's goals of denying full civil rights to gay relationships.

Yea, verily, praise him for being non-committal and supporting the administration regardless of his personal views!

I'll grant that his personal comments about "freedom for everyone" are valid and to be respected. But saying is one thing and doing is another.

For some reason, I'm reminded of a quote "You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what's right." I wonder who said that. And I wonder how it applies to a case where the vice president of the United States knows what is the right thing to do, but refuses to do anything against the actions of an administration of which he is second in command, and refuses to speak up except when it's politically advantageous.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by VP Dick Cheney
freedom means freedom for everyone...into any kind of relationship they want to

So that means people into beastiality, necrophilia, and pederasty should expect the same? Note, I'm for gay marriages, it's just that Cheney's comment could be read that way.

[Otto]

Are you people joking? Is this a giant woosh?

Dick the hatchet man Cheney is getting respect in your eyes for this nakedly cynical and 100% calculated flip-flop?

Are you insane?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Otto

Are you people joking? Is this a giant woosh?

Dick the hatchet man Cheney is getting respect in your eyes for this nakedly cynical and 100% calculated flip-flop?

Are you insane?

What flip-flop? This is precisely what he said back in '00. The guy has to support the prez even though he doesn't personally agree with that policy. BFD.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Zebra

Funny,


I thought Cheney played 'bad cop' while George played 'good cop'.


I guess they decided to trade places on this one.

You misunderstand. To Bush's core, the extreme right, this is bad cop...

[hajario]

Good for him but this Libertarian is still going to hold his nose and vote for Kerry.

BTW, I was listening to Air America on the radio and Janine Garofalo actually claimed credit for the announcement because of statements that she made earlier in the week. I had high hopes for them but her and Franken are every bit as bad as Rush and Hannity.

Haj

[threemae]

I cannot quite figure out exactly what it is that you people expect Cheney to do. What real powers does the VP have compared to the president when Bush isn't choking on pretzls or falling down things? He has influence, and that's about it. So he spoke his mind on the campaign trail, and hopefully, just hopefully, some formerly anti-gay marriage people will at least consider or entertain the possibility that gay marriages might not be the evil downfall of civilization and marriage they are cracked up to be. Again, does the VP have veto power? No. Does he vote in congress? No. Well, I guess you could say president pro tem of the senate, but I feel that is stretching things a bit.

Cynical ploy for votes? How? It has been just as strongly condemned by "family values" groups as lauded by pro SSM groups. It certainly won't change my vote away from Kerry-Edwards for Bush-Cheney because Bush is obviously heart-set upon ammendments and policies against gay-marriage. Cheney made no promises of the sort to pander to Log-Cabin Republicans. All he did is sincerely express his opinion.

Originally Posted by Otto

I'm not sure why you felt a second thread on the exact same topic was warranted but I'll say the same thing here as I did there.

I was actually suprised when I came home last night that I couldn't find anything on Cheney's statement, and when I woke up this morning, I couldn't find anything either because the other thread doesn't specifically mention Cheney. I supposed that I could have searched for one, but that was an oversight on my part. I just wanted to post. Am I forgiven?

Originally Posted by SolGrundy

For some reason, I'm reminded of a quote "You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what's right." I wonder who said that. And I wonder how it applies to a case where the vice president of the United States knows what is the right thing to do, but refuses to do anything against the actions of an administration of which he is second in command, and refuses to speak up except when it's politically advantageous.

Don't take too much from my sig; I just thought it was a good quote. The LBJ poster in my room is far less than 6x8 feet. For the record, LBJ wasn't always a VP, ya' know (some dude got stabbed or somethin') and at any rate the quote doesn't really refer to inaction in the face of clear moral decisions. In fact, it is quite the opposite, it refers to how easy it is to take actions you believe to be moral and correct, but how often we err in coming to that determination. Am I misinterpreting my own sig here? If I am, you can be damn sure I'll want to know about it.

Hence, I don't think that Republicans are evil, nor that every word they utter is a part of some evil Machavelian scheme, I just find fault with the decisions they sometimes reach. Like invading Iraq. No doubt Bush honestly thought it was a jolly brilliant idea.

[calm kiwi]

Will this cost Bush any votes? (fingers crossed)

[Miller]

Originally Posted by threemae

Hence, I don't think that Republicans are evil, nor that every word they utter is a part of some evil Machavelian scheme.

I don't think that of Republicans, either.

Dick Cheney, on the other hand...

Bottom line is, all this means is that Dick Cheney turned out to be not quite as biggoted as we had thought. This is still entirely distinct from not being a bigot at all. When Dick Cheney speaks out in favor of gay marriage, then I'll be impressed.

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by hajario

Good for him but this Libertarian is still going to hold his nose and vote for Kerry.

BTW, I was listening to Air America on the radio and Janine Garofalo actually claimed credit for the announcement because of statements that she made earlier in the week. I had high hopes for them but her and Franken are every bit as bad as Rush and Hannity.

Haj

Can I have some of what you're smoking because it must be good.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by John Mace

What flip-flop?

This flip-flop:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday (March 2, 2004) he supports President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, even though one of his daughters is gay and he has said in the past the issue should be left to the states.

"The president's taken the clear position that he supports a constitutional amendment," Cheney said in an interview with MSNBC. "I support him."

Cheney said during the 2000 campaign, and again last month, that he prefers to see states handle the issue of gay marriage. His openly lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney, is an aide in the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, but the vice president declined to discuss her.

Originally Posted by John Mace

This is precisely what he said back in '00.

But it's not what he said earlier this year. Hence, flip-flop.

Originally Posted by John Mace

The guy has to support the prez even though he doesn't personally agree with that policy. BFD.

Huh. I thought that people, even within the same administration, even the president and the vice-president, were allowed to disagree. If Cheney really supported a constitutional amendment, then he's flip-flopped. If he didn't support the amendment personally but mouthed his support publicly for political gain, then he's a lying hypocritical shit. He sure as hell while Bush was pushing the amendment either remained silent or made a simple statement of disagreement, but he was obviously afraid of losing whatever political advantage to the Republicans that he thought supporting the amendment would bring.

And yes, calling for the passage of a constitutional amendment which would forever strip a significant percentage of the American people from ever exercising the right to marry and enjoying the rights, privileges and responsibilities marriage entails is a big fucking deal. The vice-president's being a two-faced lying bastard who'll sacrifice his daughter in the pursuit of votes is a big fucking deal. If you think it's not and you're falling for this compassionate conservative shit again, then you're a contempible fool.

[John Mace]

Oh for crying out loud...

"I support him" is not the same as "I agree with him." It's a weasely way for a politician to deal with a politically volitle issue. What do you want Cheney to do, go out and campaign against Bush? Be real.

I suppose you're just as incensed that Kerry, during his campaign, said Edwards was not qualified to be president and yet chose him as his VP. Is Kerry 100% sure he'll not be incapacitated during his term in office?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

Can I have some of what you're smoking because it must be good.

What the fuck are you talking about, kid? A little substance please. Where do you disagree with me?

Haj

[Otto]

Originally Posted by John Mace

"I support him" is not the same as "I agree with him." It's a weasely way for a politician to deal with a politically volitle issue. What do you want Cheney to do, go out and campaign against Bush? Be real.

What I expect, and yes I know it's a fantasy, is that if Cheney truly believes that there should be no constitutional amendment, that he either remain silent on the issue or he be man enough to say that he disagrees. What the fuck is with you Bushies? You have no sense of a middle course. Cheney's choices were not limited to "support the amendment" and "go out and campaign against Bush." And hey, if Cheney was being a weasel, then call him on being a weasel. Or is being a weasel OK in your book?

Originally Posted by John Mace

I suppose you're just as incensed that Kerry, during his campaign, said Edwards was not qualified to be president and yet chose him as his VP. Is Kerry 100% sure he'll not be incapacitated during his term in office?

And it's the typical lame-ass counter-punch, the guy you like does something disgusting so rather than deal with it you dredge up a completely unrelated example. Your horseshit example is invalid unless Kerry changes his mind and dumps Edwards from the ticket.

See, what Cheney did was take Position A (leave it to the states) then flip-flop to Position B (amendment) and now has flip-flopped back to position A again. But rather than just admit this is what has happened, you desperately split hairs between "support the amendment" and "support the President who supports the amendment" as if that had some meaningful distinction and finger-point at someone else.

[Liberal]

It was okay in your book when Clinton was a weasel wasn't it?

[Polycarp]

Hmmm. I don't think you two are communicating, Otto, and it's not John's being obtuse.

If you happen to think that tobacco is the Greatest Evil Besetting Man, you don't take a job with Philip Morris. And if you do disagree with corporate policy, you have the privilege of saying that privately to close friends, but should not make a public statement that slams who you work for.

Dick Cheney signed on as candidate for VP, was duly elected, and has worked to make the Bush policies work. (Not that I'm overly fond of him or of them, but to give the devil his due, let's note that he has done what was expected of him as VP.)

In the case of the gay rights/gay marriage controversy, this has placed him in a very untenable situation -- with a Lesbian daughter and #2 man to a President courting the Religious Right on the subject.

I'd be very surprised that Cheney said what he said without discussing it with Bush and Rove first -- but I would not be at all surprised to find that he got the go-ahead to say how he really feels, and drop his support for the amendment (which must have really caused tense family relations). From the POV of the campaign, this marks an effort to reach out to moderates -- and it just may be that Rove, who is no dummy, is realizing that support for Bush/Cheney among those other than hard-line Republicans, who would vote for the Geico gecko and the Aflac duck if they were the Republican candidates, and the religious right, is evaporating faster than dry ice in a blast furnace. This may be the start of a "kinder, gentler" Bush public image targeted to reach out to moderates.

And I still maintain that it's Cheney saying actually how he feels, as opposed to having to toe the party line out of loyalty to Bush.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by John Mace

"I support him" is not the same as "I agree with him."

I see the letters in the two phrases are different, and in English that usually means there are differences in meaning, but when the rubber hits the road I'd have to call this a distinction without a difference.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Liberal

It was okay in your book when Clinton was a weasel wasn't it?

I beg you to have your dosages checked.

And no, it wasn't OK when Clinton was a weasel. Clinton lost my vote in 1996 because of the SSM issue.

But hey NEWSFLASH, dumbass, this isn't about Clinton. It's not about Kerry, or Edwards, or Gus the Field Goal Kicking Mule. It's about Cheney and his craven flip-flop. It's about Cheney. Cheney. Dick Cheney. Try to keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by Polycarp

And I still maintain that it's Cheney saying actually how he feels, as opposed to having to toe the party line out of loyalty to Bush.

Then he should have kept his fucking mouth shut during the amendment push.

[SolGrundy]

Originally Posted by threemae

I cannot quite figure out exactly what it is that you people expect Cheney to do.

Simple. Make a real stand on same-sex marriage and stick with it. Ideally, if he truly supported that it be left to individual states to decide, he would've protested his administration's attempts to have a constitutional amendment banning it on the federal level. Just because you don't have direct voting power over a measure doesn't mean that you can't influence it. What, is George not returning his phone calls or something?

The big issue, though, is what "we people" expect others to do. To start with, don't praise Cheney as being pro-gay and taking a bold stand against his administration by speaking according to his conscience. Because that's not what he's doing. When the issue was being decided, he said openly that he supported the administration's attempts to ban SSM. Now that the issue's been voted on and that they've seen it doesn't have as much political clout as they'd hoped, he's going back and saying that he's always left it for the states to decide.

And for some bizarre reason, people are eating it up. The so-called "Log Cabin Republicans" are praising him on their website as a promoter of gay rights. He's simply not. At best, he's being completely non-committal of it.

The reason people are dismissing it as a political ploy is because he made the speech to a campaign audience. So now people can point to it and say "fuck yeah!" and "see, not all Republicans are bigoted monsters!" To which I say, how is that good or deserving of praise? If he was so ineffectual at stopping the constitutional amendment from getting to the point of a vote in the first place, what is he going to do the next time Bush starts dropping in the polls and needs to use fear and homophobia to boost up his ratings with a "defense of marriage" ploy?

The only time I've seen Cheney "sincerely express his opinion" is when he was telling people to go to fuck themselves.

Originally Posted by threemae

Don't take too much from my sig; I just thought it was a good quote. The LBJ poster in my room is far less than 6x8 feet. For the record, LBJ wasn't always a VP, ya' know (some dude got stabbed or somethin') and at any rate the quote doesn't really refer to inaction in the face of clear moral decisions. In fact, it is quite the opposite, it refers to how easy it is to take actions you believe to be moral and correct, but how often we err in coming to that determination. Am I misinterpreting my own sig here? If I am, you can be damn sure I'll want to know about it.

Your sig was just a convenient springboard for the point I was trying to make, no other implications there. The quote says that it's easy to act with the wrong intentions; I was merely pointing out that you can also have the best of intentions and foil it through inaction, and that doesn't deserve any praise.

[SolGrundy]

Originally Posted by John Mace

"I support him" is not the same as "I agree with him." It's a weasely way for a politician to deal with a politically volitle issue. What do you want Cheney to do, go out and campaign against Bush? Be real.

What do you want us to do? Go out and say, "Fuck yeah! The vice president is a weasely politician!" We're just pointing out that making Cheney out to be some hero of the gay rights movement is absurd.

Originally Posted by John Mace

I suppose you're just as incensed that Kerry, during his campaign, said Edwards was not qualified to be president and yet chose him as his VP. Is Kerry 100% sure he'll not be incapacitated during his term in office?

What does that have to do with anything? If we're 100% against Bush & Cheney on an issue, that means we're automatically 100% for Kerry and Edwards? Kerry is anti-same sex marriage as well; his stance is almost identical to what Cheney is now claiming is his stand. And I'm not going to be praising Kerry as a champion of gay rights any more than I praise Cheney. Because he's not.

Fortunately, though, there are plenty of more important or equally issues that I do agree with Kerry about, and Kerry is not directly threatening to set back gay rights with idiotic political power-play attempts to alter the Constitution.

When you have to decide between the guy who's actively breaking into your house, and the guy who's merely telling people that it would be fine with him if someone else broke into your house, you take the latter.

[threemae]

Originally Posted by SolGrundy

Your sig was just a convenient springboard for the point I was trying to make, no other implications there. The quote says that it's easy to act with the wrong intentions; I was merely pointing out that you can also have the best of intentions and foil it through inaction, and that doesn't deserve any praise.

Or, actually it says exactly the opposite, but hey, whatever, I don't want to damage your springboard.

How exactly is a VP directly contradicting the president and helping to bring the matter front and center to discussion inaction?

If that's the case, then I'm sick of all those pinko liberals demonstrating and writing letters and changing votes and opionions and all that stuff becasue it's really just and excuse for inaction. Couldn't Cheney start a coup or do something along those lines? Really now.

[SolGrundy]

Originally Posted by threemae

Or, actually it says exactly the opposite, but hey, whatever, I don't want to damage your springboard.

What? It says "doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what's right." How is that "exactly the opposite" of "it's easy to act with the wrong intentions?" I'll admit that I can be dense at times, but I think I'm plenty capable of understanding the sage wisdom of LBJ, for Chrissakes.

Originally Posted by threemae

How exactly is a VP directly contradicting the president and helping to bring the matter front and center to discussion inaction?

If that's the case, then I'm sick of all those pinko liberals demonstrating and writing letters and changing votes and opionions and all that stuff becasue it's really just and excuse for inaction. Couldn't Cheney start a coup or do something along those lines? Really now.

And there you go. It's a liberal vs. conservative issue. Fuck that. It's an issue of what's wrong vs. what's right. I've already said that the "liberal hero" John Kerry is not a supporter of gay rights. What the hell?

Cheney had a chance to make his views known when this administration was acting to bring about an unfair constitutional amendment. He didn't; he maintained that he supported the administration in whatever it did. That's worse than inaction. That's acting against your conscience. In other words, knowing what is right and still doing what's wrong. Hence the quote.

So now, after it's already been decided on the federal level (for now), and it helps the party to soften their edge so as not to be seen as too bigoted, he does a flip-flop during a campaign speech. And he's to be praised for saying he was against the amendment all along? Really now.

[roger thornhill]

I'm interested reading the nuanced level of debate here how many of you have law degrees. Are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kerry and Edwards all lawyers, incidentally?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

I'm interested reading the nuanced level of debate here how many of you have law degrees.

I don't have a law degree. I have a paralegal certificate.

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kerry and Edwards all lawyers, incidentally?

Cheney has a B.A. and an M.A. from the University of Wyoming. Rumsfeld has a bachelor's degree from Princeton. Kerry has a bachelor's from Yale and a law degree from Boston College. Edwards has a bachelor's from North Carolina State University and a law degree from the University of North Carolina.

Not sure why you're asking about Rumsfeld...

[roger thornhill]

Thanks for the info. I mentioned Rumsfeld I always think of Rumsfeld/Cheney as a kind of double act, Don having taken Dick under his wing in his early days in Washington. The Ford era if I recall correctly.