Either that or there is a rats and sinking ships thing going on.
Maybe Cheney is a gay ?
Funny,
I thought Cheney played ‘bad cop’ while George played ‘good cop’.
I guess they decided to trade places on this one.
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.
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.
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.
You misunderstand. To Bush’s core, the extreme right, this is bad cop…
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
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.
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?
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.
Will this cost Bush any votes? (fingers crossed)
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.
Can I have some of what you’re smoking because it must be good.
:rolleyes:
But it’s not what he said earlier this year. Hence, flip-flop.
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.
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?
What the fuck are you talking about, kid? A little substance please. Where do you disagree with me?
Haj
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?
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.
It was okay in your book when Clinton was a weasel wasn’t it?
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.
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