Dick Cheney’s recent stand against a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage (novices: that’s a “pro-gay” stance) was certainly a surprise to most of us. He publicly broke with the President – his boss – and stated his own opinion: that marriage should be left to the various states.
Cheney also stated that the President makes policy, and that he (Cheney) was only stating his own opinion. He reiterated his pride in and love for both of his daughters. The question for debate is:
How will Dick Cheney’s public support of gay unions affect the GOP’s ability to get out the vote this November?
It seems to me that it could go both ways, or have no effect. I can see moderates who are stuck on that specific issue taking his stance as a ray of sunshine; they can now hold their noses a little less firmly and vote for Bush/Cheney. I can also see far-right conservatives so put off by his acceptance of the “Sodomites” that they stay home from the polls. Will this be a net gain, or a net loss, for the GOP?
Self-identified conservatives and/or Republicans, feel free to share your own opinions here, since you’re one member of the class in question. Liberals, please include your name and town if you wish to opine.
This thing is so overblown I almost hesitiate to even post in this thread.
All Cheney did was say he was against a federal constitutional amendment. That’s it. Lots of Republicans and other conservatives have said the same thing. He DID NOT come out in favor of gay unions any more than Bush has. He did not say he’d oppose a constitutional amendment on the state level (I’m guessing he’d support one).
This is the biggest non event being reported in the news these days. Maybe it’s supposed to make Cheney appear less distant and cold, but no one is going to be changing his or her vote because of this. No one.
Um, once again, no. Cheney’s recent “stand” is not “pro-gay” by even the most charitable of definitions. At best it’s “maybe not quite as anti-gay as some others.”
And before anyone brings it up, yes, it’s the exact same position that John Kerry has made. Only the most naive would believe that democrats and republicans are going to have exactly opposite opinions on every issue.
My first reaction to this story was to recognize that Dick Cheney doesn’t “break” with the GOP, so this must be carefully calculated. I just couldn’t figure out the purpose. Then on the way home, NPR had David Brock on, who, in the context of discussing the upcoming GOP convention, was making the claim that the GOP has more room for reasonable differences on issues. AHA!
This is a bald attempt to make themselves appear more of an open tent, but as others have noted, he really didn’t say much, and only went so far as to say it is a states’ rights issue, which is more typically the GOP line anyway. Additionally, for once he is able to use his daughter’s homosexuality, since hardliners can justify his statements because he is swayed out of compassion for his family.
Actions speak louder than words. I don’t expect to see Cheney actually do anything to support gay unions other than pay it lip service, which will let the re-election campaign handlers trot him out as an example of “compassionate conservatism.” :rolleyes:
It’s a blatant crumb tossed to Log Cabin Republicans and others so that the Republican party can look to at least be debating the issue and now Cheney takes the heat of the Religious Right. Simple enough. It’s called having your cake and eating it, too.
I’ll echo the above sentiments: very little, kind of late.
Still, it is a data point that argues against the conclusion “Dick Cheney is an evil cyborg constructed by the religious right and Halliburton”. If I wasn’t so utterly replused by Bush’s position on gay marriage, it would benefit my opinion of the two, at least as regards gay rights issues.
Personally, I didn’t see it as a log-cabin crumb. VP Chaney answered a question honestly without trying to spin it into party agreement. He is a great orator and could have ducked the question easily.
What people missed in his words is what he meant by “letting the states decide”. Did he mean State Supreme Courts or did he mean voters? I took it to mean voters.
Then you haven’t been paying close enough attention…
Now… the fact that he’s remained pretty much silent against his boss’s obviously opposing view over the past 4 years, and is only now reiterating it loudly enough to be heard throughout the national press, certainly leads me to believe there’s an agenda afoot. And given the fact that his boss threw out some big, fat lies of his own during his 2000 debates about what he’d do or support if he were elected, I certainly don’t take Cheney’s words from that debate to mean that he actually gives a real shit about the issue (at least not enough to actually do something about it). Which also goes to prove that just because he’s being spotlighted over this issue now, it shouldn’t give false hope to Republicans looking for a reason to remain loyal to this team, thinking that Cheney’s opinion means squat as far as the party no longer pushing the federal contstitutional issue. It obviously doesn’t. But it’s also factually incorrect for the media to be painting this as some kind of change of stance or new revelation, because it’s not.
My guess, giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt, has been that Cheney is more moderate on this one issue than he is on most other things because of his daughter’s being a lesbian.
Although I agree that the politics are trying to present a more moderate image may be coming into it too. The theme of the Republican convention is supposed to be the projection of a nice, friendly moderate image. Hence, our governor George Pataki will be prominently featured even though he is strongly at odds with the Bush Administration over some issues…e.g., environmental issues.
If John Kerry had been POTUS for four years and did nothing regarding gay unions in that time, you’d have a point. Since he hasn’t been elected President (yet), however, you’re merely confabulating apples and oranges.
Dick Cheney’s record of gay rights advocacy from the White House speaks for itself.
I think its a maneuver to help Bush with gay voters… the gay marriage ban probably has crippled Bush’s standing with many gays. Cheney is trying to soften that anti-gay stance. Trying to be attractive to both sides of the issue.
Of course when things get going Cheney won’t do a thing to support pro-gay legislation… but he’s a politician and that is expected.
I recall reading several years ago, with what validity I can’t say, that Dick and Lynne are personally opposed to gay marriages, but (like some other conservatives) do not feel that their views require being enacted into law where they would regulate others.
This is reminiscent of Kerry’s stand on abortion. Only his position on that issue is often criticized because it suffers from something that the commentators call excessive “new aunts.”
Cheney is demonstrating what family values really means to him, in supporting his daughter.
Cheney’s ice-cold, neutral recital about what Bush did indicates he will let the amendment issue die on it own, without any input from him. He all but shrugged and winked at the filibuster, without pushing to invoke cloture, when a word from him usually gets just about anything he wants.
A majority of people are against gay marriage. But many of those people are wary of a federal constitutional amendment banning it. This is a way of softening Bush’s stance so as not to alienate some libertarian Republicans.
To paraphrase their message: “Hey, we still hate fags, but we’re not going to mess with the Constitution over it.”
<— turning blue