Cheney speaks:
Cheney Says Does Not Back Federal Gay Marriage Ban
DAVENPORT, Iowa (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday that he does not personally support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage but accepts President Bush’s decision to pursue such a ban as administration policy. [Reuters: US Domestic News]
He does have a daughter who is a lesbian in a committed relationship with a partner of several years. I think I read somewhere that they exchanged rings.
I don’t agree that it’s a state issue, because, as Cheney himself says:
“My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want,” Cheney, 63, said in response to a question at a campaign “town hall” meeting in Davenport, Iowa.
Bravo, Mr. Cheney, bravo. It’s good to hear such a prominent Republican speak on this issue.
August 24th, 2004 at 5:42 pm
I was just on my way here to post about it… Am I the only one cynical enough to think that this was a deliberate attempt by the admiistration to “soften” it’s position on gay marriage? Bush has shored up the base by supporting the amendment, now it’s time to throw the moderates a bone? Or maybe I’ve been reading Atrios too long…
August 24th, 2004 at 5:43 pm
Damn it, the first one should be “its.” Wordpress really should allow you to edit your own comments, regardless of who posted the thread originally… Sigh.
August 25th, 2004 at 12:08 am
Be on the lookout for the one policy decision disagrement that allows Bush to switch VPs with 60 days left to go…
August 25th, 2004 at 12:29 am
I can’t help but feel you all are a bit too paranoid for your own good. I don’t think there is anything nefarious here… My feeling is that this might actually be honest and heartfelt. His daughter is gay and he does, as a result, have some personal experience with this. It’s hard to hate your own child…
It’s entirely possible that they could use this to appeal to moderates, but Cheney essentially deferred to Bush in his speech, rightly saying that Bush sets the agenda for this White House. My political sense indicates that as long as Bush doesn’t endorse Satan as his new lord, the hard right (or conservative base) has little choice at this time but to vote for Bush. They’ve gone Republican so deeply and burned bridges with the Democrats enough that I can’t imagine leadership for any of the major conservative or Christian organizations would or could endorse any candidate that would lead to a Kerry victory. So, for at least the next 4 months, the Bush camp can (and should, if they want to win) ignore their conservative base.
I think this is why you’re going to see so many moderate speakers at the convention… lots of pro-choice Republicans, for example. The conservative base is locked up because Kerry or the Democratic party is not a palatable choice for them.
August 25th, 2004 at 9:39 am
I don’t know… I think I agree with Kim on this one. And perhaps, Sujal, you’ve been watching too much of the West Wing
August 25th, 2004 at 11:41 pm
I think it probably was what Cheney really feels, but the only reason he got to say it was because it wouldnt hurt Bush politically (and it may help him).
August 26th, 2004 at 12:07 am
Is this an example of compassionate conservatism? Neo-Cons are limited to identifying with experiences of those close to them. I suppose nothing will be done about the 43+ million uninsured until we withdraw health insurance from the executive and legislative branches? Just think of how the republican platform would look if Bush’s wife was a rape victim. Come on, we need empathetic leaders to get this country’s problems addressed, or at least to have a reasonable debate about the issues!!!!!
August 26th, 2004 at 12:24 am
yeah, can we not go there please? I’m kinda weirded out by the thought that having a close family member be a rape victim is helpful to anyone else.
August 27th, 2004 at 8:06 pm
Hadn’t really noticed the timing of all this. From an OpEd in today’s WaPo: “Cheney made his pro-gay statement on the same day that the Republican platform committee contradicted him, endorsing President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage…. Please forgive me for a certain skepticism. Cheney’s comments made the front pages, burying the news of the hard-line platform. In light of the Republicans’ strategy at their convention next week — to put up one moderate speaker after another by way of pretending that their party is far less right-wing than it is — Cheney’s comments would seem to be perfectly on message. Distracting attention from this administration’s commitments to the right is essential to Bush, who has been performing rather badly among independents and moderates in the polls.”
August 27th, 2004 at 8:21 pm
Ok. Rereading Sujal’s comment above, I think I should clarify my skepticism. I believe that Cheney meant everything he said. I don’t doubt that it was honest and heartfelt. However, this administration has shown an amazing ability to stay on-message, and to keep any internal policy disagreements out of the press. The “town hall” meetings that Cheney has been frequenting are filled with BC04 supporters, who do not seem inclined to ask a question that will challenge the administration’s positions, or to try to bait Cheney into contradicting Shrub’s public stance. Thus, I don’t think the timing is a coincidence. If Cheney did not have at least the President’s tacit approval to say what he did, he would have stated “I love my daughter and I support her,” and ended it at that. I don’t think he would have gone on to directly challenge administration policy by stating, “My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want.” That’s why I think this was an attempt by the administration to reach out to moderates, on the same day that the base was having a field day creating an anti-gay platform. Like you said in your last paragraph, I think the timing of Cheney’s comments, and the large number of moderates speaking at the convention, is an appeal to a middle America that isn’t as far to the right as Bush’s base. But I think it’s all smoke and mirrors, personally. Shrub has shown himself to be anything but a “compassionate” conservative.