Sadly
Far too many on the left will not be able to comprehend this.
Mary Cheney writes that when she told her parents she was gay, the first words out of her father’s mouth “were exactly the ones that I wanted to hear: ‘You’re my daughter, and I love you, and I just want you to be happy."
For many on the left, any deviation from the official party line makes the person who doesn't toe that line an apostate. They are wrong and must be punished. And so the left wing tries with all it's might to unseat Joe Lieberman, because he will not embrace and bow to the sacred cow of anti-war. He must be purged, the party must be pure.
And the left will, make no mistake, deride and abuse Cheney because he loves his daughter. They will slam him for being a hypocrite because he doesn't damn her for not being true to his politics. They will not be able to see the difference. They will not be able to see and will slam the man for loving his daughter. Because politics do not matter in love of one's children.
They already are slamming, BTW.
Other Links to this Post
-
e p o n y m o u s — May 3, 2006 @ 8:46 am
By KCR, May 3, 2006 @ 8:19 am
Quite the contrary. As a liberal Democrat, I see this as the one thing that humanizes Cheney, who otherwise I think of as a snarling, contemptuous kleptocrat.
By Shocked, May 3, 2006 @ 8:28 am
Please grow up. You are presumably getting worked up over some comments posted on the internet and a vision of how leftists are going to react to Cheney’s statement. Who cares? I can find any sort of opinion on the internet. Let’s see, there’s the Iraqi funeral protesters (God hates fags???), white supremecists, hispanics that want to reclaim the US, torture proponents, NAMBLA folks, etc.
Blogs will never be taken seriously so long as crap like this is published. Do normal workig people really have the time to sit around and get pissed about an invented situation created by god knows whow? Do you consider this journalism? We already have crap like this spewed by Randi Rhodes, Rush, etc. This market is already full - thank you….
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 8:37 am
I’m grown up enough to read the comments slamming Cheney over this already. Frankly, if you don’t like it here, don’t read this blog. Really simple, isn’t it?
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 8:39 am
KCR, Good for you. Sadly, there are a bunch of folks who are not as kind as you.
By Steve M., May 3, 2006 @ 8:43 am
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
I don't criticize him for loving his daughter. I criticize him for implying that everyone else's gay sons and daughters aren't worthy of love. I went to school during the anti-busing years in Boston, in a mostly white school. A lot of the jocks called black people "****" — but they got along well with their one or two black teammates. In other words, "I know you as an individual, so you're not a ****." Well, guess what, genius? All the people you call **** are individuals, too. They only seem like an undifferentiated mass to you because you don't know them. That's Cheney — and the whole right wing — on the subject of gay people: If it's my daughter or son, I feel love; if it's somebody else's kids, then intolerance is the only option.
(Edited for offensive content)
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 8:58 am
Steve M. - I do not allow words like the ones you used through. Period.
Visitors From Daou, read the comment policy before you post. I do not want to do a mass delete like the last time Daou linked me. Short version: Keep it clean and keep it civil or your comment never gets published.
Comment policy is on the “About” page.
By Steve M., May 3, 2006 @ 9:01 am
Fine. You can certainly see I didn’t use the word to give offense. I used it only to make a point.
By Steve M., May 3, 2006 @ 9:02 am
I do understand that this is the source of a lot of self-righteousness in the right blogosphere — “Those lefties say **** and **** all the time, and we never do, so we’re better people.” Whatever floats your boat.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 9:03 am
I simply don’t allow the words - I let your comment through.
By Jay Carroll, May 3, 2006 @ 9:18 am
I’d like to see where this alleged “slamming” is coming from. I can’t imagine anyone woth their salt (right or left) is going to waste time on it.
I’m afraid it’s just not big news that Cheney loves his daughter. What IS significant is that Cheney and much of the rest of the far right can’t extend that concern and care past their own family. They feel no obligation to the social contract. As I result, what I feel for him is contempt.
By Randy, May 3, 2006 @ 9:21 am
Cheney uses his daughter’s sexual preference like a political football. Mary Cheney has been a “professional lesbian”, hired by the Coors brewing company as a spokesperson to appeal to the gay community When Edwards mentioned the fact she is gay in a debate, Cheney’s wife and the entire rightwing echo chamber feigned outrage at the mention of something so private. I guess the talking point is that Cheney is a warm cuddly accepting father, who only wants to protect his daughter. Well, in my world you can’t have it both ways. If she has used her gayness in the public domain for profit, she’s out. Why wasn’t she standing with her family at the last Republican convention as is customary?
By madmatt, May 3, 2006 @ 9:24 am
what a man he is managing to love his sick, twisted, unholy daughter. I can go on and on with words that rethugs use to describe homosexuals. So what did he do to make her gay because as you so frequently say homosexuals aren’t born that way they are abused into it or they are selfish and hedonistic?
By Black Jack, May 3, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Tony Blankley said the Democrat Party had become too loathsome to be seen in public. Now, it seems many of them are too vulgar to comment on blogs. One can only imagine to what new forms of self abasement they might descend if they lose in 2006.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 9:28 am
Lovely, Matt. Just lovely.
Jay, do a technorati search and see for yourself.
Randy, I think Edwards was boorish for bringing family into it. It’s not ideological.
By John Gillnitz, May 3, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Frankly I could care less about Cheney’s relationship with his daughter. We know the whole thing about Republican’s hating gays is just a ruse to rabble up the rubes. cough Jeff Gannon cough.
What I don’t like about Cheney is that he is a war criminal who is robing this country blind.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 9:37 am
It’s always nice when the Daou report links me. I get to meet such charming people.
But, hey, thanks for proving my point.
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 9:46 am
No one’s slamming Cheney for being a hypocrite because he doesn’t damn her for not being true to his politics.
We’re slamming Cheney for being a hypocrite because despite claiming to love his gay daughter, he still blindly marches in lock-step with Republicans who think gay people are evil, god-hating, family-ruining deviants who aren’t worthy of marriage or any other rights that other American’s have.
Oh yeah, and we’re slamming him for lying about Iraq, outing Valerie Plame, holding secret energy meetings to line the pockets of his big business buddies, etc., etc., etc.
But nice try to blame the Democrats on this one. Typical way for a Republican to twist the argument.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Here’s someone from the left side with a different take than a lot I’ve seen:
http://www.dragonflyeye.net/blog/2006/05/03/at-the-risk-of-defending-dick-cheney/
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 9:49 am
Quite funny, Matt. You come here, read one post and know exactly who I am and all about me.
One problem, I’m not a Republican.
But hey, carry on with your passionate, if clueless criticism.
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 9:55 am
Again, nice way to twist the argument.
If you reread my post, I’m not sure where I said anything about knowing exactly who you are and what you’re all about.
In fact, I wrote exactly one sentence about you: “But nice try to blame the Democrats on this one.” Would you like to argue that’s not fact?
My next sentence: “Typical way for a Republican to twist the argument.” is also true. But where exactly did I call you a Republican?
But hey, if you want to respond to my valid Cheney criticism with a post that is neither here nor there in an effort to discredit the messenger without addressing the message, that’s fine. I’m used to that from Republicans as well.
By Begeegs, May 3, 2006 @ 9:59 am
I agree with some posters here that say that this humanizes Cheney slightly.
However, what I don’t understand is why you are just questioning the left, why not the right as well as I am certain that there are a lot of people on the right that are finding this quite hard to stomach.
Also, regarding Lieberman, surely you can have a better argument than the one you are stating?? Because he isn’t an anti-war - it isn’t because of that, but because alot of people don’t agree with his politics and even the man himself sounds like he is going to put himself above that of the Democratic Party by declaring himself independent should he lose the primary. Hardly someone who I’d want in my party whether it be a Democrat or a Repub….
By bigduke, May 3, 2006 @ 10:00 am
“One problem, I’m not a Republican.” I’ve noticed this a bunch lately. There’s a heckuva lot more “Independents” running around these days. This whole article is a straw man argument. Get over it people. Everyone knows Cheney is not a straight shooter.
By matt, May 3, 2006 @ 10:06 am
It’s just kind of shows that the Cheneys must be pursuing a knowing demagoguery towards gay people. One kind of justice for family, another for the public at large when political advantage is to be gained.
By KC, May 3, 2006 @ 10:06 am
So Gauis,
Do you think that Cheney’s daughter was born gay? Seems that the Republicans have no issues with rousing their base (who, BTW - believe that “gayness” is some kind of sickness or choice) with anti-gay messages, also love their gay children.
And you’re worried about the “hypocrisy” of the “left”.
Nice try.
By matt, May 3, 2006 @ 10:09 am
in terms of Edwards, it cracks me up that the right is still whining about what was about a 2 out of 10 on the Rove scale of hard hits. It’s so pathetic the one-sided view of reality carried around by the committed cult members, really there is no reason to do anything but summarily dismiss such childish, worthless reasoning.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 10:11 am
KC, I haven’t said a thing about gays themselves.
Begeegs, I didn’t see one rightwing comment on the other extreme on technorati or I would have mentioned it.
Try and split hairs, Matt, you said what you said, anyone can read it.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 10:13 am
matt, I didn’t bring Edwards up, Randy did. Who’s not letting it drop?
By KC, May 3, 2006 @ 10:21 am
KC, I haven’t said a thing about gays themselves.
Nice non-answer. Maybe if Tony Snow - CIA Code Name “Snow Job” decides to leave his post, you can take over.
But seriously, Gauis - you didn’t answer my question. I know you didn’t say anything one way or the other on gays, which is why I asked. Thanks. So what DO you think?
Are the true hypocrites not those who, in a moment of political need, will use hateful, divisive tactics to motivate their base on issues which in all reality will never even affect any of them? Oh, that is, unless one has a gay daughter!
The Republicans know how to use a wedge issue, and they know that no federal legislation will ever ban gay mairrage, yet they perpetuate the hate for political gain.
So tell me, was she born gay, and is Cheney a hypocrite. Instead of knocking the “left” strawman down, take a stand.
By Begeegs, May 3, 2006 @ 10:22 am
So you should mention in your post that you are confining your ‘many on the left’ to a search for content on blog sites rather than implying such a wide scope…..
By Flamethrower, May 3, 2006 @ 10:27 am
What Shooter sez is what should have been said. Every parent would love their child to the ends fo the earth.
Unfortunately for gays in this country, since this issue can’t have a monetary value assigned to it, Cheney feels no need to follow his belief to policy.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 10:36 am
KC - irrelevant to the topic and you know it.
Begeegs, you do know how to make a technorati search? It’s not just a few blogs commenting. I linked the one left site I found that did not go off on Cheney (not that I read them all. This is simply not the issue I would care to spend all day discussing).
And surely you can see that a number of commenters have proven the point I made.
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Commenters have proven the point you made?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought your point was: ‘They will slam him for being a hypocrite because he doesn’t damn her for not being true to his politics. They will not be able to see the difference. They will not be able to see and will slam the man for loving his daughter. Because politics do not matter in love of one’s children.”
Show me where “a number of commenters” have done that.
By indo, May 3, 2006 @ 11:04 am
Oh my gawd! People toe the party line? That NEVER happens. All on the left should be up against the wall and murdered, because the right would NEVER do that. (See John McCain, Harriet Miers) And those awful leftists who bash Cheney for loving his daughter, shame them (if such an idiot were to exist). I mean republicans never bring personal attacks against Politicians’ families. (See John McCain, Bangladeshi adopted child).
I’d agree with you on the obvious annoyance of shrills from the left. But the critisism is biased and incomplete without pointing out the sheep from the right doing the same sycophantic thing. There are idiots on both sides that ruin every meaningful debate. There are idiots on both sides that cannot possibly look outside there own partisan formed worlds. It’s really sad. But instead of making this about that bigger issue, you narrow-mindedly point out only the left, and appear to be part of the problem.
By Dan, May 3, 2006 @ 11:08 am
hack
By KC, May 3, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Gauis,
Sorry I stumbled onto this lame blog. Pathetic, really. You know that any REAL blogger would have made this statement a LINK:
“They’re already slamming - BTW”
Ah, but not you. You’re above that. You send people to do technorati searches because you’re too disingenuous or lazy to back up what you’re saying.
Then you employ the very tactic Cheney himself is employing to avoid answering questions that may alienate him from the base he relies so heavily upon. Except while he has something to lose, you’re just a coward - one who attempts to hide behind the FALSE assertion that what I’m asking you isn’t EXACTLY ON TOPIC.
Come to think of it, I might have been here before - and then too I left with the feeling that I was dealing with a partisan hack, unwilling to engage in any real debate, and content with simple rabble rousing.
Tell me - what is your readership like when you’re not linked to by the mean people at the Daou report?
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 11:14 am
indo, I did not find anyone attacking from the right when I wrote this (haven’t looked lately and don’t plan to). I’m not an ideologue, if you look around you’ll see that.
Gee, Dan, that was witty repartee.
By Debra Petersen, May 3, 2006 @ 11:19 am
If Mr. Cheney is so loving and accepting toward his daughter, then how can he support policies which punish her and those like her for being what they are? This is the fundamental contradiction that no rhetoric can simply explain away.
By Dan, May 3, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Thanks man. Much appreciated.
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Gauis, you’re getting killed here.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 11:39 am
No, I’m not.
By Diva, May 3, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Gauis,
I really love the ad hominem attacks from the majority of your commenters it served well as proof positive that your post was spot on.
KC and his little diatribe made me laugh - he insults you - that’s how he “engages in real debate”. Classic
I re-read the comments and you not once insulted or offended your commenters - too bad that some of them didn’t extend the same courtesy to you.
By the way you automatically become a Republican the minute you don’t parrot the Leftist Talking Points.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 11:48 am
It’s actually quite funny. They prove my post’s point, then declare victory.
By Diva, May 3, 2006 @ 11:56 am
Debra,
What policies does VP Cheney support that punishes homosexuals? Please read this
article and then tell me that Cheney’s behavior is a contradiction.
Diva
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Thanks for finding that, Diva. I’d read that at the time but couldn’t remember where.
By Diva, May 3, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Gauis,
Ironic isn’t it? Victory? hmm, gosh that sounds familiar. Now, where did I hear that - someone lost yet they thought they had won? Gosh darn, it’s a faint memory - something to do with hanging chads…
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
Hah.
I go through this same thing whenever Daou links. Never once had the same reaction from the right. Funny, isn’t it?
By Maimonides, May 3, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
ah, I see, you tell us Liberals what we will do because of what you saw your magic blue crab crystal ball. Wish I had a magic crystal ball to tell me what you were thinking.
And I do slam Cheney for having enough love for his own daughter, but not enough for the troops whose lives he is sacrificing for an imperial experiment doomed to failure.
By Black Jack, May 3, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
Well, on the bright side, the Lefties did clean up their language. Now, let’s see if they’re capable of fitting a few facts into their hateful preconceptions.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
I didn’t have to do another mass delete this time, so the language did improve.
And, no, Mal, I wrote this post after the attacks started. No crystal ball, just a few basic reading skills.
By Maimonides, May 3, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
“hateful preconceptions” Please expand upon your strawman there Mr. Black Jack. I’d be curious to know what preconceptions about liberals you have that lead you to believe we have such “hateful preconceptions”
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Read the link Diva left, Mal. The commenters here assumed Cheney hates gays. The article says quite the opposite.
By Maimonides, May 3, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Btw, if you guys are getting worked up over what liberal trolls say on your page, please be aware that the same thing happens when conservative trolls come to our pages. I do not consider the trolls, whatever affiliation they claim, to be representative of any side of any issue, except perhaps the sociopath vote.
The thing I have against Cheney, in this instance, is that he doesn’t have the balls to say that policies which disenfranchise homosexuals are wrong, the balls to stand up to his own party, despite his love for his daughter. Putting politics before family, that’s an empty kind of love, an un-Christian love, and I expect more from our elected leaders.
BTW, if you are calling me Mal, it’s Maimonides. Wiki the name, if you’re curious.
By Black Jack, May 3, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Mr Maimonides,
The following are examples of “hateful preconceptions” taken from only the first dozen or so comments at the top of this thread. Additionally, I acknowledge my assumption the quotes come from Lefties.
“…Cheney, who otherwise I think of as a snarling, contemptuous kleptocrat.”
“Let’s see, there’s the Iraqi funeral protesters (God hates fags???), white supremecists, hispanics that want to reclaim the US, torture proponents, NAMBLA folks, etc.”
“I criticize him for implying that everyone else’s gay sons and daughters aren’t worthy of love.”
“They feel no obligation to the social contract. As I result, what I feel for him is contempt.”
“Cheney uses his daughter’s sexual preference like a political football.”
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
I’ll re-post my earlier point and see if Gauis, or anyone else, cares to debate it. (I’m not holding my breath.)
No one’s slamming Cheney for being a hypocrite because he doesn’t damn her for not being true to his politics.
We’re slamming Cheney for being a hypocrite because despite claiming to love his gay daughter, he still blindly marches in lock-step with Republicans who think gay people are evil, god-hating, family-ruining deviants who aren’t worthy of marriage or any other rights that other American’s have.
By Nikita, May 3, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
I’m glad Dick Cheney loves his daughter. Very glad. Now, if only he’d extend that love to all the gay people he doesn’t know by addressing the basic inequities that they face.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Sorry, then mai, my eyes are not what they used to be. Cheney is doing nothing different from any VP has done before. You back the President on his policy regardless of personal belief. Come on - that’s politics. (And don’t be offended if I shorten your handle, I’m not all that great a typist!)
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Matt M - go read what Diva linked.
By Maimonides, May 3, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
Blackjack,
Regarding the quotes you posted:
“…Cheney, who otherwise I think of as a snarling, contemptuous kleptocrat.†I’d say the record has born this out, although I’d refer to him as an oligarch rather than kleptocrat.
“Let’s see, there’s the Iraqi funeral protesters (God hates fags???), white supremecists, hispanics that want to reclaim the US, torture proponents, NAMBLA folks, etc.†Poorly spelled, unevenly argued, and I’m not sure where the OP was going with this. Trolls, you know.
“I criticize him for implying that everyone else’s gay sons and daughters aren’t worthy of love.†That does seem to be where his policies take us.
“They feel no obligation to the social contract. As I result, what I feel for him is contempt.†Again, I must agree with this assessment of Republican political ethics. You can call me a troll if you like.
“Cheney uses his daughter’s sexual preference like a political football.†And he does this as well. As I’ve said previously, if his love trumped his politics, I’d think more of the man.
Gauis,
This are bad times for our country, as your run-in with the trolls demonstrates, the sociopaths are dictating the political discourse from both sides of the aisle. I am tired of strident calls for limiting others rights, for Amending the Constitution to add hate as an American Value, and I am disgusted that the US, the Lone Ranger on his White Horse, has debased itself at the altar of “the ends justify the means.” We need less politicians and more statesmen, and in my humble view, Cheney is all politician with no regard to the State.
Yours,
Maimonides (generally shortened to RAMBAM)
By Marz Blak, May 3, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
I stumbled onto this from the Daou link. Typical sophistry and non-response to relevant criticism of your OP. But let’s go through your post point-by-point, shall we?
“For many on the left, any deviation from the official party line makes the person who doesn’t toe that line an apostate. They are wrong and must be punished….”
And the left is different from the right, how, exactly, in this regard?
“…And so the left wing tries with all it’s might to unseat Joe Lieberman, because he will not embrace and bow to the sacred cow of anti-war. He must be purged, the party must be pure….”
Nonsense. The Dems have a few guys like Joe Lieberman and Bob Casey Jr.; the Republicans, a few guys like Ahnold. Both are attacked by the more mainstream elements of their respective parties. Oh, difference: the Republicans will trot out and Ahnold at things like national conventions to show how big a tent they have. But neither party lets any such guys anwhere near things like platform committees, etc., nor does any such non-mainstream member of either party have a snowball’s chance in Hades of being a major player within the party at the national level.
Oh, one other difference: last time I checked, there were more moderate-to-conservative Democrats to be found, at least at the national level (in Congress, the Senate, and among the governors) than there are moderate-to-liberal Republicans. But I certainly haven’t seen any Democrats going around referring to other Democrats as DINOs.
“…And the left will, make no mistake, deride and abuse Cheney because he loves his daughter. They will slam him for being a hypocrite because he doesn’t damn her for not being true to his politics. They will not be able to see the difference. They will not be able to see and will slam the man for loving his daughter. Because politics do not matter in love of one’s children….”
This doesn’t exactly *scan* to my eye, but if I am decipering it correctly, what you are saying is that the left is deriding Cheney’s professed love for his daughter as being hypocritical in the light of his position in an administration whose policies work forthrightly against that daughter’s interests. In other words, there is in Cheney someone saying, “I love my daughter and I disagree with my party’s policies as they affect her in the most intimate and important areas of her life; but since I’m part of the power structure of that party and I agree with the politics of the party apart from that one issue, I’m basically going to just go along and keep my mouth shut about it.” Is this your position? Then, yes, you’re right; I must be one of those lefties who are not able to see how such a position is *not* hypocritical.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
How about we go with Ram, it’s easier! (By the way, I knew who Maimonides was, I’ve read Durant). Regardless, I think you’re demonizing the man a bit. Politics is what it is, at the VP level you simply do not oppose your president. You may have issues with the Republicans - I do - and that’s fine, but I think attacking the man like this is out of line (I’m not saying you’re really bad about this, either, you’re not going postal like some have).
By Kevin, May 3, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Say what? Of course we liberals appreciate that he loves his daughter. That he uses hatred of gay people as a campaign device despite having a gay person in his own family is what is so despicable. Any conservative paying any attention knows that Rove uses gay issues to scare voters into voting out of hate over and over again. He’ll do it again this year.
By Nick, May 3, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
What a silly argument to make, even for a polemicist.
By Black Jack, May 3, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
The Real Hate Mongers Step Up and Show Themselves:
Here we go again. Kevin’s assertion that Cheney “uses hatred of gay people as a campaign device…” is an obnoxious lie, as are the balance of his hysterical comments. Refusing to bow down to the shibboleth of gay marriage isn’t an expression of hate, but making hateful and idiotic pronouncements is.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
No, Lutheran, Nick.
By KC, May 3, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
Diva says: KC and his little diatribe made me laugh - he insults you - that’s how he “engages in real debateâ€. Classic
I re-read the comments and you not once insulted or offended your commenters - too bad that some of them didn’t extend the same courtesy to you.
Thanks for continuing the disingenuity on display here, Diva. Gauis was doing just fine though. If you can sit here like he does, make bold assertions without backing any of them up, and then stifle debate by conveniently choosing not to discuss the issue with certain people, then by my definition, you are a coward. Period. Before commenting in response, however, please look back at my previous posts where I asked multiple times what his position was on the topic - only to be blown off.
Pathetic.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
Keep think KC, that’s what you’re good at.
By Dan, May 3, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Black Jack,
I find it interesting how you hold yourself above the fray of the “hateful” while conveniently ignoring that the most vocal components of the contemporary Republican party are far Right idealogues who quite literally hate anything that isn’t based in Christian fundamentalism. I can throw around websites like GodHatesFags.com and paint the Republican party with that broad brush, but it would be deceptive. The fact is, however, that the current administration has repeatedly leaned on the ultra-conservative wing-nuts that disgrace the concept of the conservatism. True conservatives, the ones who don’t hold out the promise of small government with tax cuts in one hand while twirling the hammer of religious governance in the other, are more and more disenchanted with the current administration and current Republican politics. But please, continue to turn a blind eye to the hijacking that the far-Right has performed on the Republican party. Just like the Goldwaterites in the 60’s who played on the then bigotry of the Southern states against blacks, today’s Republicans are only too eager to play on the bigotry of the religious elements of the Right against homosexuals.
That Vice President Cheney loves his daughter is, as has been pointed out by left and right thinkers in this thread, wonderful. But his policy choices do not echo the belief that she should enjoy the same freedoms that heterosexuals do.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Dan,
His policies? Please. As I pointed out, read the link Diva provided and keep in mind he is the VP and must support the policies of the president publicly.
You’re demonizing the man. You may have disagreements with the policies of the party, but to ascribe them to the man personally, when he is on the record as not being particularly thrilled with those policies is wrong.
By Heru, May 3, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Cheney is not a hypocrite (in this matter). Regarding gay marriage, he said “I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.”
In fact, this is an issue that religious fundamentalists are much more likely to assail Cheney about.
One of the key tenets of Liberalism is a respect for differences, such as sexual orientation. One of the key tenets of Conservatism is a desire to return to “the good old days” and a public morality (inaccurately) taken from the Bible, specifically the Old Testament.
Conservatives that oppose homosexuality are the ones that are hypocrites, not Dick Cheney (at least as far as this issue is concerned.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Thanks, Heru. Nicely said.
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
By your logic, if you’re a member of the KKK but don’t lynch black people or call them racial slurs, then you’re not a racist.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Very good, Matt. Going to try for Godwin’s law next?
By indo, May 3, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
You say you’re not an idealogue, and if I look around I’ll see that. But when you say the “left will, make no mistake, deride cheney for loving his daughter”, you espouse your biased idealistic vision and make a ridiculous claim that you so want to be true, because it fits into your idealistic vision of the “left”. The reality is that anybody, ANYBODY who derides someone’s love for their own child is an idiot. Someone not to be listened to, or responded to. But you took the time to write this little useless piece for what? An anti-leftist rant? Kind of idealistic don’t you think? You may not be a party line idealogue, but you clearly want to paint half the country as wanting to attack Cheney for this, which you know is ludicrous.
Now, you want to talk about the left’s hypocrisy and idiocy, there are so many other areas to start with. This one rings hollow.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Well, you have an opinion, I have an opinion. I post about a lot of subjects, as you have seen since you took time to look around. You have to admit there was an awful lot wailing and gnashing of teeth over this post.
You know how many comments I drew from the right on my post slapping Rush around today?
I’ll give you a hint, indo. Zero. Zilch. Zip.
By Matt M, May 3, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Yet again I make a valid point that Gauis can’t seem to respond to except with an off-the-point non-answer to try and prove how terribly well read he is.
By indo, May 3, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
Yes, there was a lot of gnashing of the teeth on this post. You set it up to be that way. When you characterize the issue like this, “far too many on the left will not be able to comprehend this”, then that is what people gnash their teeth about. People don’t like to be mischaracterized like that. Especially when they consider themselves on the left, and are able to “comprehend” this as you put it. You’re patronizing people, and then getting more irritated when they want to defend themselves. You put out the bait, and your surprised you caught something? Do YOU comprehend that this is tripe?
You know how much I care about how you “slapped rush around”?
I’ll give you a hint - get over yourself.
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Well, I have two fans at least. But thanks for dropping by.
By KC, May 3, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
OK, Heru. I’ll buy that for a buck. Good answer, and you seem to know what you’re talking about.
Gauis, I have no idea whether you were being sarcastic with your “Keep Think” comment, but if so it was over my head.
By Diva, May 3, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
KC. Like I said I re-read all of the comments and then posted.
Let’s review your comments:
I agree that your first comment was benign however it’s your follow-up comments that prompted my comment. (emphasis mine)
Like I said one out of three comments you posted was benign - the rest were laden with ad hominem attacks against Gaius. Just because you believe that Gaius did not address your concerns does not give you a free pass to personally attack him, his blogs or his ideas. Having a child-like tantrum because you feel that you are not being heard or paid atttention to is not going to help your argument in this “debate”. Like I said Gaius didn’t insult or offend you - he may disagree with your viewpoint but not once did he launch a personal attack against you.
I do however admire your consistency - you called Gaius a coward after you attacked him for disagreeing with you and now you are calling me a coward for pointing out your behavior. Consistency is a key to a good debate - however you need to go back and learn the other debate rules- like attacking the idea not the person…
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
*Sigh* It’s a paraphrase off a line in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid. Doesn’t anyone watch the classics anymore….
KC, Diva did a pretty nice roundup there, so I won’t go over it again. Your comment that I did not address was completely irrelevant to the topic of the post and I chose not to answer because of that. That does not make me any of the other things you accuse me of.
By KingCranky, May 3, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Now if only Alan Keyes had the same love for his daughter that Cheney does
Odd, but I would never have guessed Keyes for a liberal
By Gauis Arbo, May 3, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
The post isn’t about Keyes.
By Ron A. Zajac, May 4, 2006 @ 2:08 am
This idea, as stated, is ridiculous.
Here’s what I think: This issue highlights the fact of the heartlessness entailed in the wholesale application of marketing analysis to modern politics. It’s all about branding. Regardless of our political affiliations, we’re all human beings, and our love choices vary. Politically, sexual preference is a wash. The myth/fantasy–exploited by the jackals of modern politics–is the useful and effective brand association of non-threatening, conventional sexuality with contemporary capital-R Republicanism. Lesbian daughter or no lesbian daughter, Chaney and his ilk wouldn’t dream of pulling the plug on a adventitious marketing-driven system that supports him politically while it slights his very own daughter, whom he is purported to “love” so much. *Now* where’s the hypocrisy?! If he *really* loved his daughter, he’d pay her–and the American polity–the highest honor of visibly and effectively acting to short-circuit this sick and sad state of political affairs. He can “come out” and send the signals that tell the very people who need to hear this–the sheep who reflexively act out these unconscious mythic associations in the voting booth–that they need to wake up and smell the reality; Republicans and Democrats are gay/lesbian, have gay sons and lesbian daughters, and if they’re looking for a silver bullet to assuage their own fear response to others’ sexual lives, they’ll either have to find some other surrogate to foist this role on, or wake up and face life; get out more, meet more people, and realize there’s more to life than agonizing over how other people comport themselves sexually. They just might have to finally face things like, oh, I don’t know…their own failing marriages and family relationships.
Think you’ll see Republicans actively doing this work, any time soon? Pshhhh!
By cian, May 4, 2006 @ 8:01 am
I think the more intreresting part of the quote from Mary Cheney’s book is her description of her mother’s reaction. She was frightened for her, that Mary would suffer the predjudice rife at the time. I wonder how Mary’s mother feels now knowing that this prejudice has since been shamefully encouraged by the present administration for no other reason than it might keep them in power. Such hypocrisy is beyond words.
By Craig, May 4, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Gaius, you made a false statement:
“The left will, make no mistake, deride and abuse Cheney because he loves his daughter.”
I’ve never seen anyone on the left who does what you say, it’s a lie.
They support Cheney doing just that.
I read the article supposedly vindicating Cheney. Rather than him supporting equal rights for gays as a constitutional right, rather than his calling for the nation to support equal rights as his personal opinion, he says he’ll support the states deciding whether they vote for equal rights or for discrimination:
“I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that’s appropriately a matter for the states to decide,” he said.”
Gaius, you are the one who made the error here by falsely claiming the left attacks Cheney for supporting his daughter. What the left wants to see is him support his daughter, and support equal rights as a matter of principle. They’re only attacking his lack of doing the latter - not, as you said, for supporting his daughter. An attack of hypocrisy is not an attack on his support of his daughter.
By Bomb Thrower, May 4, 2006 @ 10:10 am
Lord Halliburton loves is gay daughter with every beat of his mechanical heart.
By Dan, May 4, 2006 @ 10:12 am
I actually didn’t make a single personal remark about Cheney, but thanks for playing. The remarks I made were about the Republican party as a whole. But thanks for playing.
The idea that his public stance on policies shouldn’t matter because of where he stands privately is absurd. His private stance doesn’t affect the lives of other people.
The only personal remark I made on this thread was towards you when I called you a hack. That remark was based on your first demogogue-ish claims about what “the Left” thinks. Talk about toeing the party line. You sound just like any other right-wing pundit that has to focus more on how “the Left” will react to whatever because there is so little material of any merit coming out of the current Republican party. All you are doing, quite poorly mind you, is shifting the debate from the fact that Cheney, through is own inaction, is signing off on the more bigoted philosophies of the modern Republican party. Cheney political roots are in Reagan-like conservatism. Reaganites should be sick with the current state of the Republican party, and so should Cheney.
By Gauis Arbo, May 4, 2006 @ 10:21 am
What I said was “too many on the left”. And for someone who “toes the party line” I sure disagree with a lot of policies. But hey.
By R Kelbert, May 4, 2006 @ 11:40 am
No one on the left will condemn Cheney for loving his daughter. What we don’t understand is why he can’t feel any love for other peoples’ gay sons and daughters. The essence of his hypocrisy is his ability to love his own daughter yet systematically work to avoid giving other peoples gay children full participation in our society. This and only this is the crux of the matter.
By Jimmy, May 4, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
No, the left will deride Cheney because he’s a lying drunken scum that dragged this country into an ill advised war and used the 4th Amendment for toilet paper.
By dsmith, May 4, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
I, too, came here through the link to Daou, prompted by a combination of curiosity and disgust at the claim that the left will “deride and abuse Cheney because he loves his daughter.” After reading the comments, I’m more confused than disgusted; you obviously have too much intelligence to possibly believe that anyone is interested in attacking the strawman you’ve constructed, and must be fully aware that what “the left” will object to is the hypocrisy of Cheney’s policies, not his acceptance of his daughter’s sexual orientation. If you oppose the legitimacy of that position, then feel free to argue the point, but why debase the discussion with the nonsense about attacking him because he loves his daughter?
By Robert, May 5, 2006 @ 12:28 am
Diva Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Gauis,
Ironic isn’t it? Victory? hmm, gosh that sounds familiar. Now, where did I hear that - someone lost yet they thought they had won? Gosh darn, it’s a faint memory - something to do with hanging chads…
Close.
Think of a banner that says “Mission Accomplished”.