Was Wolf Blitzer out of line with Dick?

[banyon]

What do you think? Should Wolf have gone there?


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kdiUXbb54qU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kdiUXbb54qU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[banyon]

I wonder if it was in retaliation for this:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oWcymCbSKqc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oWcymCbSKqc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[dirk digler]

Mary Cheney is a public figure and she should be treated as such.

If he doesn't like it tell his own daughter to STFU.

[Chiefnj]

It was a fair question. The problem was that Wolf acted like a scared little kid and felt he had to say "I like your daughter" a dozen times and backstep once he got the glaring daggers from Cheney.

[CRONUS]

It is fair game, that is why is sucks to be a politician. On the other hand he could have been less ham handed which is also why I marked other.

[Jenson71]

Blitzer kinda melted after that stare down.

[penchief]

It is fair game, that is why is sucks to be a politician. On the other hand he could have been less ham handed which is also why I marked other.

He should have reserved his daggers for James Dobson instead of Wolf Blitzer. Cheney, Bush, and the whole lot of them will attack the press and the opposition while giving McCain, Dobson, etc. the benefit of the doubt, as Cheney did.

Anybody on the other side of the fence is "flat out wrong" but if anyone on their side disagrees with them it's characterized as a "disagreement."

Did I hear Cheney say that the idea that big mistakes were made in Iraq was "hogwash?"

Did I also hear Cheney say that if the opposition and press handn't resisted the administration's efforts in Iraq the war would already be over?

It appears to me that Dick Cheney has no shame, whatsoever.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Wolf got owned there. Absolutely owned. Dobson made it a "fair" question, I suppose, but the response was more than fair as well.

[StcChief]

Should have known better.

but sensationalism sells.

[mlyonsd]

I think the question was fair and Cheney's response was intended to stop that line of questioning. Which it did.

[patteeu]

I don't know whether it's a fair question or not, but I think he got what he deserved for asking it.

[banyon]

I thought it was out of line in that it was completely out of context with the rest of the interview. Compared with the questions Wolf had already battered him with like "Hey, Dick, remember when you said 'the insurgency is in its last throes'?"

This seemed like kicking a downed dog to me I guess.

[Cochise]

I think it's a lame tabloid-esque tactic and I'm glad Cheney embarrassed him for doing it.

[recxjake]

WOLF = OWNED

[memyselfI]

It was a fair question because some of the WH's biggest backers are up in arms over the issue. The questionable issue is whether CNN should be the ones asking the question. Perhaps Fox News should be the ones asking it...

but then we know State Television is. :hmmm:

[bkkcoh]

Wolf got owned there. Absolutely owned. Dobson made it a "fair" question, I suppose, but the response was more than fair as well.
I think it's a lame tabloid-esque tactic and I'm glad Cheney embarrassed him for doing it.

I agree totally, that was a question that was totally out of line and Dick answered the question fantastically. :toast:

[bunnytrdr]

I wonder if it was in retaliation for this:

Still waiting for the answer to this question, "Where did you get the film?"

[bunnytrdr]

It was a fair question. The problem was that Wolf acted like a scared little kid and felt he had to say "I like your daughter" a dozen times and backstep once he got the glaring daggers from Cheney.Cheney has a right to remain silent.

[bunnytrdr]

Blitzer kinda melted after that stare down.There is noting like dead air on a TV program.

[memyselfI]

If Cheney had been forthcoming and truthful throughout the rest of the interview then I think Wolf might have been out of line with the question.

But Cheney kept responding with 'I reject the premise of the question' or other crap that he tried to use to make many of the questions seem out of line vs. the ANSWER that he SHOULD be giving that would be...

seeing that if he were truthful he'd be dissing his own performance with the rest of us.

Thus, seeing that Cheney was basically using the same rejection of the question ploy throughout the interview, I think he was using it on the daughter question as a way to get out of dealing with a controversial subject vs. some sort of personal privacy matter.

[mlyonsd]

If Cheney had been forthcoming and truthful throughout the rest of the interview then I think Wolf might have been out of line with the question.

But Cheney kept responding with 'I reject the premise of the question' or other crap that he tried to use to make many of the questions seem out of line vs. the ANSWER that he SHOULD be giving that would be...

seeing that if he were truthful he'd be dissing his own performance with the rest of us.

Thus, seeing that Cheney was basically using the same rejection of the question ploy throughout the interview, I think he was using it on the daughter question as a way to get out of dealing with a controversial subject vs. some sort of personal privacy matter.

That made my hair hurt.

[Chiefnj]

Cheney has a right to remain silent.

Any relevant answer he may have given will have been held against him and his party by his daughter or the religious right. He has a right to an attorney. If he cannot afford an attorney the President will block any and all subpoenas for him, free of charge.

[penchief]

The question is not out of line. This administration has consistently exploited gays in order to create a wedge issue for political gain. When karma comes back at you by way of those very same fundamentalists whom Bush & Cheney courted for that purpose, then it is a VERY fair question.

Cheney has the right not to answer the question but I think Cheney was out of line for insinuating that it was an unfair question. These guys are not untouchable. They swiftboat people all the time but it's unfair to question their hypocricy?

I'm tired of these guys thinking they are above scrutiny when they have no qualms about dishonestly destroying the reputations of others, let alone the damage they are doing to our country.

Cheney said that we were making great progress in Iraq.

Cheney said that the war would be over by now if it wasn't for the press and political opposition.

Cheney said that the notion that big mistakes were made in Iraq was "hogwash."

I find it absolutely amazing that people defend this man while at the same time thinking that Wolf Blitzer was out of line.

[patteeu]

Any relevant answer he may have given will have been held against him and his party by his daughter or the religious right. He has a right to an attorney. If he cannot afford an attorney the President will block any and all subpoenas for him, free of charge.

Why does Cheney have to worry about the religious right again?

[penchief]

Why does Cheney have to worry about the religious right again?

He doesn't. But that doesn't discount his gross public hypocricy concerning the subject, either. When considering this specific topic, I believe that criticism of his silent hypocricy is justified from both sides of the issue.

I couldn't do to my daughter what he did to his. I would view that as selling my daughter out. On the other hand, I also couldn't advocate selling out an entire segment of the population if I really didn't believe what I was advocating.

Is this the kind of moral authority that some people are always talking about?

[Chiefnj]

Why does Cheney have to worry about the religious right again?

His party seems to worry about them a lot. Lots of pandering, lots of donations. But you know that.

[Taco John]

I think it's a fair question for the fact that Dick Cheney is a Republican, and his party is fundamentally against what his daughter is doing. He's a public figure, and a party leader. It goes with the territory.


That said, Dick Cheney has the right to be indignant about the question, and blow the religious right off in their concerns about gays and lesbians having children. And IMO, he's absolutely right. It's none of their business.

[Baby Lee]

This administration has consistently exploited gays in order to create a wedge issue for political gain.
Absolutely!
And how great their genius, in recruiting the gay advocates to push and push and push for changes in the marriage laws, so it looked like they were just responding to developments beyond their control by putting to a vote by the people.
Crafty!!! :thumb:

[penchief]

Absolutely!
And how great their genius, in recruiting the gay advocates to push and push and push for changes in the marriage laws, so it looked like they were just responding to developments beyond their control by putting to a vote by the people.
Crafty!!! :thumb:

Are you saying that this administration has not exploited the issue for political gain?

[Baby Lee]

Are you saying that this administration has not exploited the issue for political gain?
I'm saying they responded in a sane and measured manner to contemporary events.

[Mr. Kotter]

Are you saying that this administration has not exploited the issue for political gain?

Are you saying the other side has not attempted to exploit the issue?

[penchief]

I'm saying they responded in a sane and measured manner to contemporary events.

Constitutional amendments?

[Taco John]

Are you saying the other side has not attempted to exploit the issue?



Huh? Dude, shut up. Let the big boys talk. Don't distract them with pointless diversion. This was actually going somewhere.

[penchief]

Are you saying the other side has not attempted to exploit the issue?

No.

[Baby Lee]

Constitutional amendments?
They amended the Constitution?? :eek:

[penchief]

They amended the Constitution?? :eek:

No, but they proposed it during the last two campaigns. To you, that's a sane and measured response?

[Baby Lee]

No, but they proposed it during the last two campaigns. To you, that's a sane and measured response?
Compared to individual states allowing a hodgepodge of redefinitions of the institution that'll have to be afforded full faith and credit nationwide, in light of the response of the will of the people in many of those other states? Sane as any other take on the issue. Certainly not extreme.

[Mr. Kotter]

Huh? Dude, shut up. Let the big boys talk. Don't distract them with pointless diversion. This was actually going somewhere. You've become so delusional, it's pathetic. When the hell are you gonna get over this raging hard-on you have for me.....

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[penchief]

Compared to individual states allowing a hodgepodge of redefinitions of the institution that'll have to be afforded full faith and credit nationwide, in light of the response of the will of the people in many of those other states? Sane as any other take on the issue. Certainly not extreme.

So you're on record for supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

I guess we've gotten to the end of this line of questioning but it was worth it because now I can ask the original question again.

Do you think that this administration, which has twice advocated a constitutional ban on gay marriage during two presidential campaigns, has politically exploited the issue?

[penchief]

Compared to individual states allowing a hodgepodge of redefinitions of the institution that'll have to be afforded full faith and credit nationwide, in light of the response of the will of the people in many of those other states? Sane as any other take on the issue. Certainly not extreme.

Oh, and by the way........I thought conservatives were "states rights" kinda guys. You know, the kind that don't approve of "central planning." What's up?

[Baby Lee]

So you're on record for supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

I guess we've gotten to the end of this line of questioning but it was worth it because now I can ask the original question again.

Do you think that this administration, which has twice advocated a constitutional ban on gay marriage during two presidential campaigns, has politically exploited the issue?
1. It wasn't a ban on gay marriage, it was a definition of 'marriage' being between one man and one woman. Semantics to some, important distinction to others.
2. I didn't say I supported it. I said it was sane and measured. I personally could care less how people arrange their affilliations. But I also understand that a sizable contingent of our fellow citizens feel otherwise, and many do so for legitimate and rational reasons.
3. Do I think that the admin was in a fortuitous [for their ends] point in time, wherein gay advocates pressed an emotional issue, which needed a response, and that need for a response brought out admin supporters in greater numbers? Possibly. Is that exploitation? No.

[Taco John]

You've become so delusional, it's pathetic. When the hell are you gonna get over this raging hard-on you have for me.....

Sheesh. :rolleyes:



Shhhh... Listen your question was cliche' and droll and had no real point to it. Now shut up this is just getting good.

[penchief]

1. It wasn't a ban on gay marriage, it was a definition of 'marriage' being between one man and one woman. Semantics to some, important distinction to others.
2. I didn't say I supported it. I said it was sane and measured. I personally could care less how people arrange their affilliations. But I also understand that a sizable contingent of our fellow citizens feel otherwise, and many do so for legitimate and rational reasons.
3. Do I think that the admin was in a fortuitous [for their ends] point in time, wherein gay advocates pressed an emotional issue, which needed a response, and that need for a response brought out admin supporters in greater numbers? Possibly. Is that exploitation? No.


1. No, this administration (and Bush specifically) advocated a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

2. No, but they proposed it during the last two campaigns. To you, that's a sane and measured response?

Compared to individual states allowing a hodgepodge of redefinitions of the institution that'll have to be afforded full faith and credit nationwide, in light of the response of the will of the people in many of those other states? Sane as any other take on the issue. Certainly not extreme.

3. So you're also on record for believing that the gay community initiated a pre-emptive strike against Bush?

[Mr. Kotter]

///3. So you're also on record for believing that the gay community initiated a pre-emptive strike against Bush?Pre-emptive strike? WTF are you smoking? :spock:

....Conservatives reacted to the activism of the gay community to over-turn and change EXISTING laws.

WTH is so hard to understand about that? ACTION from the left, led to REACTION on the right. Duh.

[Taco John]

Pre-emptive strike? WTF are you smoking? :spock:

....Conservatives reacted to the activism of the gay community to over-turn and change EXISTING laws.

WTH is so hard to understand about that? ACTION from the left, led to REACTION on the right. Duh.


Them dang negroes! They gave ACTION by breaking their chains and running themselves off tha plantation. We merely reacted to their action by whipping them good!

You're hopeless man. What you aren't recognizing is that the government gives tax credit and asset protection to people who unionize simply on the merit of gender, and that, to the gay community, is an injustice. I don't blame them. I personally don't care about the religious merits of the argument, and neither should government. The only thing that should matter here is the bottom line, follow the money aspect of this.

[penchief]

Pre-emptive strike? WTF are you smoking? :spock:

....Conservatives reacted to the activism of the gay community to over-turn and change EXISTING laws.

WTH is so hard to understand about that. The ACTION came from the left; the RIGHT is merely REACTING. Duh.

What you and baby lee are suggesting is that the gay community picked a fight with President Bush. Why would they do that? That would be stupid, IMO.

What happened is that this administration played to the fears and prejudices of it's fundamentalist base. Considering that both elections came down to questionable behavior in a single state, it's fair to say that both elections were close enough to be tilted by the fundamentalist vote.

And, as we all know, this administration has not been above pandering to fear and prejudice for political purposes.

[Mr. Kotter]

What you and baby lee are suggesting is that the gay community picked a fight with President Bush. Why would they do that? That would be stupid, IMO.

What happened is that this administration played to the fears and prejudices of it's fundamentalist base. Considering that both elections came down to questionable behavior in a single state, it's fair to say that both elections were close enough to be tilted by the fundamentalist vote.

And, as we all know, this administration has not been above pandering to fear and prejudice for political purposes.If you don't think that gay rights advocates picked the fight on this one, you simply haven't been paying attention for the past 20-30 years of American history.

As for the charge of demagoguery, it is certainly part of politics, sadly. But it's weilded pretty evenly on both sides of the isle. "Republicans want Grandma to eat dogfood! Children will starve! And Republicans want dirty air and water!"

I'm not saying it wasn't a part of the motivation here. Frankly, I don't like it when either side does it. But it's a fact of life, unfortunately.

[penchief]

If you don't think that gay rights advocates picked the fight on this one, you simply haven't been paying attention for the past 20-30 years of American history.

As for the charge of demagoguery, it is certainly part of politics, sadly. But it's weilded pretty evenly on both sides of the isle.

So, it's just coincidence that this president "HAD NO CHOICE" but to twice campaign for president while putting an emphasis on a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

How is it so many presidents before Bush were able to ignore and tolerate something so galling without advocating a constitutional amendment while running for president?

[penchief]

If you don't think that gay rights advocates picked the fight on this one, you simply haven't been paying attention for the past 20-30 years of American history.

Yeah.......I know what you mean, man. All those people not wanting to be discriminated against; it can be a real downer. What's the world coming to, anyway?

[Mr. Kotter]

So, it's just coincidence that this president "HAD NO CHOICE" but to twice campaign for president while putting an emphasis on a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

How is it so many presidents before Bush were able to ignore and tolerate something so galling without advocating a constitutional amendment while running for president?Don't you pay attention to the news? Activist campaigns during the 1990s and "victories" in Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, coupled with Full Faith and Credit....put pressure on the right to respond. It's not rocket-science.

[penchief]

Don't you pay attention to the news: activist campaigns in Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, coupled with Full Faith and Credit....put pressure on the right to respond. It's not rocket-science.

Yes, I do pay attention to the news. I suspect that our differences of opinion stem directly from our different viewpoints.

This issue has been around for some time but it has only become a national spectacle since this administration first campaigned for president. It is constantly regurgitated by this administration everytime an election comes around.

When one considers the current predicament that this administration has put us in, why on earth would anybody in the White House or the republican party be concerned about gay marriage?

[patteeu]

He doesn't. But that doesn't discount his gross public hypocricy concerning the subject, either. When considering this specific topic, I believe that criticism of his silent hypocricy is justified from both sides of the issue.

I couldn't do to my daughter what he did to his. I would view that as selling my daughter out. On the other hand, I also couldn't advocate selling out an entire segment of the population if I really didn't believe what I was advocating.

Is this the kind of moral authority that some people are always talking about?

How did he sell her out? The only issue I can think of that you might be talking about when you say that the administration has "exploited gays in order to create a wedge issue for political gain" is gay marriage and on that I think wrong in general and particularly wrong in the case of Cheney.

It wasn't the Bush administration who put gay marriage by judicial decree on the table. And on the subject of the amendment, Dick Cheney prefers to leave it up to the states, but he recognizes that he serves the President and the President sets policy.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that his daughter considers anything her father has done as a betrayal.

There is no hypocrisy here and there is no selling out here.

[patteeu]

What you and baby lee are suggesting is that the gay community picked a fight with President Bush. Why would they do that? That would be stupid, IMO.

What happened is that this administration played to the fears and prejudices of it's fundamentalist base. Considering that both elections came down to questionable behavior in a single state, it's fair to say that both elections were close enough to be tilted by the fundamentalist vote.

And, as we all know, this administration has not been above pandering to fear and prejudice for political purposes.

They did pick a fight. They picked it because they thought they could win it. What's so hard to understand here?

[Cochise]

There would not be an issue for them to have exploited if the gay lobby hadn't tried to impose their will directly on an overwhelmingly opposed public through the judicial system and complicit municipalities nationwide.

[scott free]

She wrote a book about it for cryin out loud, EVERYBODY on either side knows that having an openly gay daughter is blood in the water for the press sharks.

It would be NO different for a Dem.

Having said that, i think Cheney handled it with total class & Blitzer ended up the heel in that instance.

[Chiefnj]

There would not be an issue for them to have exploited if the gay lobby hadn't tried to impose their will ...

They are forcing you into a gay marriage?

[go bowe]

You've become so delusional, it's pathetic. When the hell are you gonna get over this raging hard-on you have for me.....

Sheesh. :rolleyes:baby it's cold outside...

and anton rolls over in his grave... :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

[penchief]

They did pick a fight. They picked it because they thought they could win it. What's so hard to understand here?

Why wait until the most anti-gay president in modern history comes around. At worst, they were responding to the campaign rhetoric of this administration.

I love the way people continue to rewrite history.

[CRONUS]

Why wait until the most anti-gay president in modern history comes around. At worst, they were responding to the campaign rhetoric of this administration.

I love the way people continue to rewrite history.

Just curious, how do you know he is the most anti-gay President in modern history. I bet you might be suprised at the attitudes of some previous ones like LBJ

[penchief]

Just curious, how do you know he is the most anti-gay President in modern history. I bet you might be suprised at the attitudes of some previous ones like LBJ

I agree. I should have said the most "openly" anti-gay president.

[penchief]

They did pick a fight. They picked it because they thought they could win it. What's so hard to understand here?

Here's a snippet from the 2000 Republican Party platform. It's curious that it was pulled from the very first paragraph of the section titled FAMILY MATTERS.

We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

When exactly did the gay community pick a fight with President Bush?

[penchief]

How did he sell her out? The only issue I can think of that you might be talking about when you say that the administration has "exploited gays in order to create a wedge issue for political gain" is gay marriage and on that I think wrong in general and particularly wrong in the case of Cheney.

Please explain.

Do you have a daughter? Would you work on a national level to deny her pursuit of happiness? Would you decry her lifestyle? If not, would you work for a company that made it a major point to deny her lifestyle and her pursuit of happiness? And if you really didn't believe what your company was advocating would you continue to advocate the denial of the lifestyle and pursuit of happiness of an entire segment of the country? Would you work for a company that wanted you to violate the dignity of your own child's dreams and goals?

It wasn't the Bush administration who put gay marriage by judicial decree on the table. And on the subject of the amendment, Dick Cheney prefers to leave it up to the states, but he recognizes that he serves the President and the President sets policy.

I didn't accuse them of putting it on the docket. I accused them of campaigning on it. By the way, check out the 2000 Republican Party Platform, which I believe was adopted before this president took office.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that his daughter considers anything her father has done as a betrayal.

I didn't say his daughter did. I do think it's odd that she would be okay with it but that's their business. But if Cheney respects his daughter and respects her lifestyle he wouldn't be joining in pulling the rug out from underneath her......unless, of course, he knew all along that it was only a political ploy and really did support his daughter's lifestyle.

There is no hypocrisy here and there is no selling out here.

I said I would feel like I was selling out my daughter and I stand by that. It appears that is exactly what he is doing to me. I know that if my daughter were openly gay and I were openly hostile toward gay marriage she would think I was selling her out. And if she thought I was doing it for selfish reasons and really didn't believe it she would hold me to the fire.

There most definitely is hypocricy. His silence on the matter is nothing more than an evasion of that hypocricy. He would have to either agree with his administration's zeolous efforts to marginalize gays for political gain or he would have to support his daughter's lifestyle. Neither of which has he been willing to do. That's kind of chickenshit, if you ask me. Stand up and be a man and a father.

[stevieray]

Please explain.

Do you have a daughter? Would you work on a national level to deny her pursuit of happiness? Would you decry her lifestyle? If not, would you work for a company that made it a major point to deny her lifestyle and her pursuit of happiness? And if you really didn't believe what your company was advocating would you continue to advocate the denial of the lifestyle and pursuit of happiness of an entire segment of the country? Would you work for a company that wanted you to violate the dignity of your own child's dreams and goals?



I didn't accuse them of putting it on the docket. I accused them of campaigning on it. By the way, check out the 2000 Republican Party Platform, which I believe was adopted before this president took office.



I didn't say his daughter did. I do think it's odd that she would be okay with it but that's their business. But if Cheney respects his daughter and respects her lifestyle he wouldn't be joining in pulling the rug out from underneath her......unless, of course, he knew all along that it was only a political ploy and really did support his daughter's lifestyle.



I said I would feel like I was selling out my daughter and I stand by that. It appears that is exactly what he is doing to me. I know that if my daughter were openly gay and I were openly hostile toward gay marriage she would think I was selling her out. And if she thought I was doing it for selfish reasons and really didn't believe it she would hold me to the fire.

There most definitely is hypocricy. His silence on the matter is nothing more than an evasion of that hypocricy. He would have to either agree with his administration's zeolous efforts to marginalize gays for political gain or he would have to support his daughter's lifestyle. Neither of which has he been willing to do. That's kind of chickenshit, if you ask me. Stand up and be a man and a father.


Are you a father? married?

[patteeu]

Why wait until the most anti-gay president in modern history comes around. At worst, they were responding to the campaign rhetoric of this administration.

I love the way people continue to rewrite history.

WTF are you talking about? I don't know what you consider "modern history," but I'd be shocked if FDR weren't more anti-gay than George W. Bush. I don't think George W. Bush is anti-gay at all. I don't think many of our recent presidents have been anti-gay although I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to tell.

[Baby Lee]

How is it so many presidents before Bush were able to ignore and tolerate something so galling without advocating a constitutional amendment while running for president?
Geez, could it have something at all to do with legally recognized gay marriages popping up for the first time ever?

[patteeu]

Here's a snippet from the 2000 Republican Party platform. It's curious that it was pulled from the very first paragraph of the section titled FAMILY MATTERS.



When exactly did the gay community pick a fight with President Bush?

Wrt gay marriage, gay activists picked it when they tried to use the judiciary to force their own views of marriage on the rest of the country instead of taking their case to the legislatures where such things should be decided.

I see nothing antagonistic in that platform plank at all.

Are democrats antagonistic toward children because they don't favor eliminating the drinking age or the age of consent?

[patteeu]

Please explain.

Do you have a daughter? Would you work on a national level to deny her pursuit of happiness? Would you decry her lifestyle? If not, would you work for a company that made it a major point to deny her lifestyle and her pursuit of happiness? And if you really didn't believe what your company was advocating would you continue to advocate the denial of the lifestyle and pursuit of happiness of an entire segment of the country? Would you work for a company that wanted you to violate the dignity of your own child's dreams and goals?

They didn't lift a finger to deny her pursuit of happiness. She doesn't seem to believe that her father has wronged her in any way regarding her "dignity of [her] dreams and goals."

When democrats argue for tax increases and universal healthcare, they are denying the dignity of dreams and goals more broadly and to a greater degree than anything the Bush administration has done or tried to do to gay Americans.

I didn't say his daughter did. I do think it's odd that she would be okay with it but that's their business. But if Cheney respects his daughter and respects her lifestyle he wouldn't be joining in pulling the rug out from underneath her......unless, of course, he knew all along that it was only a political ploy and really did support his daughter's lifestyle.

Some gay people (probably including Cheney's daughter) recognize that persuading the majority of Americans to expand marriage to gays is far preferable than the divisive and counterproductive approach that left wing gay activists are pursuing today. A few probably don't even think gay marriage is a good idea in the first place. But you want to lump them all into one group and declare that the liberal party line is the only approach that honors their dignity. :BS:

I said I would feel like I was selling out my daughter and I stand by that. It appears that is exactly what he is doing to me. I know that if my daughter were openly gay and I were openly hostile toward gay marriage she would think I was selling her out. And if she thought I was doing it for selfish reasons and really didn't believe it she would hold me to the fire.

There most definitely is hypocricy. His silence on the matter is nothing more than an evasion of that hypocricy. He would have to either agree with his administration's zeolous efforts to marginalize gays for political gain or he would have to support his daughter's lifestyle. Neither of which has he been willing to do. That's kind of chickenshit, if you ask me. Stand up and be a man and a father.

It's not hypocrisy because opposing gay marriage is not the same thing as hating gays or wanting something other than happiness and goodness for them. You can't understand it because, on this issue at least, you put ideology ahead of pragmatism. :Poke:

[bunnytrdr]

Any relevant answer he may have given will have been held against him and his party by his daughter or the religious right. He has a right to an attorney. If he cannot afford an attorney the President will block any and all subpoenas for him, free of charge.ROFL I am certain that he can afford a "Dream Team" of attorneys.

Where is Johnny C when you need him.

I can hear him saying, "If you trust in Halliburton, you won't be hurtin."

[go bowe]

johnny cash?

is he singing about prison again?

[bunnytrdr]

I think it's a fair question for the fact that Dick Cheney is a Republican, and his party is fundamentally against what his daughter is doing. He's a public figure, and a party leader. It goes with the territory.


That said, Dick Cheney has the right to be indignant about the question, and blow the religious right off in their concerns about gays and lesbians having children. And IMO, he's absolutely right. It's none of their business.The father is not responsible for the sins of his children.

[bunnytrdr]

johnny cash?

is he singing about prison again?No, Johnny cockeron, and he is probably singing from HELL right now.

[patteeu]

From the same interview:

Wolf Blitzer: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good President?

VP Dick Cheney: No, I don't.

Wolf Blitzer: Why?

VP Dick Cheney: Because she's a Democrat.

LMAO

[penchief]

Are you a father? married?

Father of a daughter? Yes.

Married? Divorced.

[penchief]

WTF are you talking about? I don't know what you consider "modern history," but I'd be shocked if FDR weren't more anti-gay than George W. Bush. I don't think George W. Bush is anti-gay at all. I don't think many of our recent presidents have been anti-gay although I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to tell.

Like I said when responding to Logical, I stand corrected. I should have specified that I believe Bush to be the most "openly" anti-gay president in modern history.

[penchief]

Wrt gay marriage, gay activists picked it when they tried to use the judiciary to force their own views of marriage on the rest of the country instead of taking their case to the legislatures where such things should be decided.

I see nothing antagonistic in that platform plank at all.

Are democrats antagonistic toward children because they don't favor eliminating the drinking age or the age of consent?

And when did that happen? Before or after this president's party's decree in their platform?

[Mr. Kotter]

Like I said when responding to Logical, I stand corrected. I should have specified that I believe Bush to be the most "openly" anti-gay president in modern history.Excuse me..... :spock:

Clinton signed DOMA, and implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

He gets a pass because his wife's a discrete carpet-muncher, or what? :shrug:

Heh. ;)

[Baby Lee]

And when did that happen? Before or after this president's party's decree in their platform?
1. I'll take that as acceding the point on whether the idea of a Constitutional Amendment or existence of the ballot initiatives were reactions to events.
2. The party platform is just a catalog of positions. Executives don't sign party platforms into law.

[penchief]

They didn't lift a finger to deny her pursuit of happiness. She doesn't seem to believe that her father has wronged her in any way regarding her "dignity of [her] dreams and goals."

No, they just solicited the prejudice and contempt of those who fear the gay lifestyle for political gain. To me, that's a sellout and an assault on the dignity of those who wish not to be discriminated against.

When democrats argue for tax increases and universal healthcare, they are denying the dignity of dreams and goals more broadly and to a greater degree than anything the Bush administration has done or tried to do to gay Americans..

Not even the same thing. How are democrats advocating the denial of individual civil rights to a segment of society by advocating the health and well-being of the masses?

Some gay people (probably including Cheney's daughter) recognize that persuading the majority of Americans to expand marriage to gays is far preferable than the divisive and counterproductive approach that left wing gay activists are pursuing today. A few probably don't even think gay marriage is a good idea in the first place. But you want to lump them all into one group and declare that the liberal party line is the only approach that honors their dignity. :BS:

I don't disagree with this at all. In fact, I agree with it except for what you're accusing me of. I only believe what I stated at the outset of this response. If Bush and Cheney are going to solicit the vote of those who harbour prejudice against gays by appealing to their fears and hatred, then they should answer to those who question the type of hypocricy that is being displayed by Dick Cheney.

Wolf Blitzer's question was completely within bounds.


It's not hypocrisy because opposing gay marriage is not the same thing as hating gays or wanting something other than happiness and goodness for them. You can't understand it because, on this issue at least, you put ideology ahead of pragmatism. :Poke:

I agree again. But you're still falsely accusing me. I don't know if you're trying to change the subject or what. But again, Cheney and this administration invited this type of scrutiny with their Rovian politics. His hypocricy has not gone unnoticed by me or others.

Cheney should puncture that hypocricy by stating his position. Does he support his daughters lifestyle or does he support the tactics his administration has used to garner votes. It's really pretty simple. It doesn't matter what Bush thinks. Is there a law that says Cheney can't disagree with the president? Especially when it comes to his own flesh and blood?

If he supports the gay lifestyle but doesn't believe that gay marriage is appropriate why doesn't he say that he supports the gay lifestyle for those who choose it, like his daughter, but doesn't support gay marriage? Why doesn't he, at least, say that?

[penchief]

Excuse me..... :spock:

Clinton signed DOMA, and implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

He gets a pass because his wife's a discrete carpet-muncher, or what? :shrug:

Heh. ;)

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

[penchief]

1. I'll take that as acceding the point on whether the idea of a Constitutional Amendment or existence of the ballot initiatives were reactions to events.
2. The party platform is just a catalog of positions. Executives don't sign party platforms into law.

But a would-be president doesn't also advocate a platform policy unless he believes it.

The fact that this is in their platform isn't even my point (other than the debate about who picked a fight with whom). The point is how they made a big deal out of it knowing that it would energize their fundamentalist base at the expense of the gay communinty. And they did that right from the get-go.

To me, that's an example of exploiting the issue for political gain. Which I think is a slap in the face to any gay person. Especially someone like Ms. Cheney, whose loved ones are in the front line soliciting that type of reactionary response from anti-gay forces.

[Baby Lee]

No, they just solicited the prejudice and contempt of those who fear the gay lifestyle for political gain.
Could you shoehorn just a few more emotional and fundamentally unprovable concepts into your interpretation of events?
They proposed action to solidify the position that a verifiably sizable contingent of citizens support strongly, that the institution of marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.
Appending adjectives and ascribing motives is just so much tea leaf reading.

[penchief]

Could you shoehorn just a few more emotional and fundamentally unprovable concepts into your interpretation of events?
They proposed action to solidify the position that a verifiably sizable contingent of citizens support strongly, that the institution of marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.
Appending adjectives and ascribing motives is just so much tea leaf reading.

And they went around the country thumping the podium with that as one of their centerpeices during both presidential campaigns.

They exploited the issue. No amount of parsing will change that. It isn't far enough in the past for you or anybody else to rewrite history.

Their behavior was irresponsible for leaders of a free democracy such as ours, IMHO.

[Baby Lee]

And they went around the country thumping the podium with that as one of their centerpeices of both presidential campaigns.

They exploited the issue. No amount of parsing will change that. It isn't far enough in the past for you or anybody else to rewrite history.

Their behavior was irresponsible for leaders of a free democracy such as ours, IMHO.
The centerpiece of their campaign, eh?

Serves me right, trying to talk this through rationally with you.

[penchief]

The centerpiece of their campaign, eh?

Serves me right, trying to talk this through rationally with you.

There you go again. Not representing what I actually said. Are you intentionally doing that?

Reread my post if it helps you. I said, "one of the centerpieces of their campaigns." When domestic policy is considered, it certainly was one of the centerpieces of their strategy.

[stevieray]

And they went around the country thumping the podium with that as one of their centerpeices during both presidential campaigns.

They exploited the issue. No amount of parsing will change that. It isn't far enough in the past for you or anybody else to rewrite history.

Their behavior was irresponsible for leaders of a free democracy such as ours, IMHO.

seriously man, you seem pretty smart... but your constant obssession has to be masking something else....there is no way you converse on a daiy basis like you do on this board.

[penchief]

seriously man, you seem pretty smart... but your constant obssession has to be masking something else....there is no way you converse on a daiy basis like you do on this board.

I have to admit, I like the new stevieray much better than the old one. You made me laugh out loud, again.

No, I'm just a normal person who converses normally on a daily basis. However, when it comes to warding off the evil spirits of neo-fascism I have no choice but to go into overdrive.

[Baby Lee]

There you go again. Not representing what I actually said. Are you intentionally doing that?

Reread my post if it helps you. I said, "one of the centerpieces of their campaigns." When domestical policy is considered, it certainly was one of the centerpieces of their strategy.
You edited your post from 'domestically policy' to 'domestical policy?'

Really?

;) :p

And what you are engaging in here, with the whole 'centerpiece to denigrate' gambit, I like to call bartcopping.

That is, taking an issue on which there is genuine disagreement, disagreement that crosses party [and other demographic] lines, amping up the characterization of the extremity of the opponent's position, assigning it wildy broadened, murky and unprovable ulterior motives, and positing that the position is central to their political being.

This country in the past 6 years has been about as gay-friendly as I've seen it in my [admittedly shorter than other's] lifetime, from high profile celebs, to pop culture, to day to day interactions, to deepening appreciation of the vast diversity of what even being gay means from person to person.

But yes, people [citizens, Americans of all stripes] are still touchy about the institution of marriage, an initially religious instition that has been around so long it's intertwined itself into civil life as well. And you want to take that single point of touchiness, and the admin's response to those who would tweak the touchy, and expand it to all out war on gay dignity.

Sorry, you're overreaching.

[Mr. Kotter]

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.
Then you aren't as bright as I had given you credit for....which actually puts you 1 or 2 standard deviations below Duhnise. That puts you about 10 IQ points above a pomegranate. :shake:

;)

[penchief]

You edited your post from 'domestically policy' to 'domestical policy?'

Really?

;) :p

Oh well, it took me three times to get it right.

And what you are engaging in here, with the whole 'centerpiece to denigrate' gambit, I like to call bartcopping.

That is, taking an issue on which there is genuine disagreement, disagreement that crosses party [and other demographic] lines, amping up the characterization of the extremity of the opponent's position, assigning it wildy broadened, murky and unprovable ulterior motives, and positing that the position is central to their political being.

Wow. And you accuse me of flowery foggy language?

This country in the past 6 years has been about as gay-friendly as I've seen it in my [admittedly shorter than other's] lifetime, from high profile celebs, to pop culture, to day to day interactions, to deepening appreciation of the vast diversity of what even being gay means from person to person..

The country? Yes.

The Administration? No

But yes, people [citizens, Americans of all stripes] are still touchy about the institution of marriage, an initially religious instition that has been around so long it's intertwined itself into civil life as well. And you want to take that single point of touchiness, and the admin's response to those who would tweak the touchy, and expand it to all out war on gay dignity..

I generally agree with this statement. Except for the part where you try to interpret my intentions. This entire debate is about whether or not Wolf Blitzer was out of line with his question about Cheney's daughter. I'm only trying to point out that which I think is obvious regarding that question.

That is, that Cheney has been somewhat of a hypocrite for not stating his position. He's leaving both the gay community and the evangelical community in the lurch. The evangelicals have paid for their representation and they're not happy. Cheney's daughter deserves the unconditional support of her father. He needs to shit or get off the crapper.

IMO, he's not much of a man or a father for his indignant refusal to do either one.


Sorry, you're overreaching.

I would expect you to think so.

[patteeu]

Like I said when responding to Logical, I stand corrected. I should have specified that I believe Bush to be the most "openly" anti-gay president in modern history.

Like I said, I don't believe GWB is anti-gay at all, open or otherwise.

[patteeu]

No, they just solicited the prejudice and contempt of those who fear the gay lifestyle for political gain. To me, that's a sellout and an assault on the dignity of those who wish not to be discriminated against.



Not even the same thing. How are democrats advocating the denial of individual civil rights to a segment of society by advocating the health and well-being of the masses?



I don't disagree with this at all. In fact, I agree with it except for what you're accusing me of. I only believe what I stated at the outset of this response. If Bush and Cheney are going to solicit the vote of those who harbour prejudice against gays by appealing to their fears and hatred, then they should answer to those who question the type of hypocricy that is being displayed by Dick Cheney.

Wolf Blitzer's question was completely within bounds.




I agree again. But you're still falsely accusing me. I don't know if you're trying to change the subject or what. But again, Cheney and this administration invited this type of scrutiny with their Rovian politics. His hypocricy has not gone unnoticed by me or others.

Cheney should puncture that hypocricy by stating his position. Does he support his daughters lifestyle or does he support the tactics his administration has used to garner votes. It's really pretty simple. It doesn't matter what Bush thinks. Is there a law that says Cheney can't disagree with the president? Especially when it comes to his own flesh and blood?

If he supports the gay lifestyle but doesn't believe that gay marriage is appropriate why doesn't he say that he supports the gay lifestyle for those who choose it, like his daughter, but doesn't support gay marriage? Why doesn't he, at least, say that?

The problem (or maybe I should say our difference of opinion here) seems to be that you think opposing gay marriage is the same as denying gays their pursuit of happiness and the dignity of their dreams and goals. I disagree and I think it is prejudiced to believe that anyone who opposes gay marriage is anti-gay.

[patteeu]

And they went around the country thumping the podium with that as one of their centerpeices during both presidential campaigns.

They exploited the issue. No amount of parsing will change that. It isn't far enough in the past for you or anybody else to rewrite history.

Their behavior was irresponsible for leaders of a free democracy such as ours, IMHO.

:rolleyes: Yeah, they shouldn't be allowed to advocate positions that are widely popular.

I'm waiting for the next (first) time you decide to decry liberal politicians for exploiting an issue like the minimum wage, or taxation of the rich, or bringing our troops home from Iraq.

[CRONUS]

Excuse me..... :spock:

Clinton signed DOMA, and implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

He gets a pass because his wife's a discrete carpet-muncher, or what? :shrug:

Heh. ;)

You make it sounds like he sponsored DOMA when all he did was sign a biil that had such overwhelming support that a Veto could not have been sustained and would have been overturned.

DADT was enacted after Clinton tried to get the services to openly allow gays and created such an uproar in the military that this was their compromise. Prior to DADT it was a court martiable offense to be gay in the military.

[penchief]

The problem (or maybe I should say our difference of opinion here) seems to be that you think opposing gay marriage is the same as denying gays their pursuit of happiness and the dignity of their dreams and goals. I disagree and I think it is prejudiced to believe that anyone who opposes gay marriage is anti-gay.

I've already agreed with this. And that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that Wolf Blitzer's question was not out of line because Cheney is being a huge hypocrite.

[CRONUS]

I've already agreed with this. And that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that Wolf Blitzer's question was not out of line because Cheney is being a huge hypocrite.

Cheney or for that matter any politician being a huge hypocrite, shocking.:p

[penchief]

:rolleyes: Yeah, they shouldn't be allowed to advocate positions that are widely popular.

I'm waiting for the next (first) time you decide to decry liberal politicians for exploiting an issue like the minimum wage, or taxation of the rich, or bringing our troops home from Iraq.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying they politically exploited it in a way that makes Cheney a hypocrite. Whether they were genuine in their belief or not is still not clear.

Wolf Blitzer was well within his bounds to ask Cheney about the apparent hypocricy that was exposed by Cheney's daughter having a baby and what James Dobson had to say about it.

[Mr. Kotter]

... a Veto could not have been sustained and would have been overturned...Complete and utter, bullshit....or, rather, BULLSHIT. ROFL

:BS::BS::BS:


I challenge you to go back. Look at the composition of Congress, then. Read the newspapers from that day....

Clinton signed that bill at 5 or 6 pm, of a LOOOOONNNNG weekend. Purposely. Because he KNEW he'd be raped for it.....and he KNEW he was betraying an important constituency, and he KNEW if he vetoed the bill, it would NOT have been over-ridden. And, yet, he signed it anyway....

You google it, and get back to me. Because you are dead-in-the-water on this one.....heh. :)

FTR, I'm not saying he enthusiastically supported it. Actually, it was one of his biggest acts of political cowardice.

[CRONUS]

Complete and utter, bullshit....or, rather, BULLSHIT. ROFL

:BS::BS::BS:


I challenge you to go back. Look at the composition of Congress, then. Read the newspapers from that day....

Clinton signed that bill at 5 or 6 pm, of a LOOOOONNNNG weekend. Purposely. Because he KNEW he'd be raped for it.....and he KNEW he was betraying an important constituency, and he KNEW if he vetoed the bill, it would NOT have been over-ridden. And, yet, he signed it anyway....

You google it, and get back to me. Because you are dead-in-the-water on this one.....heh. :)

FTR, I'm not saying he enthusiastically supported it. Actually, it was one of his biggest acts of political cowardice.

Votes were
85-14 Senate
342-67 House

Far more than was needed to over turn a veto, please play again.

[Mr. Kotter]

Votes were
85-14 Senate
342-67 House

Far more than was needed to over turn a veto, please play again.Link? :spock:

FTR. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong; but if I am, it proves that MY party....the Dems were political cowards to beat all hell, that day in Congress...:shake:

[CRONUS]

Link? :spock:

FTR. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong; but if I am, it proves that MY party....the Dems were political cowards to beat all hell, that day in Congress...:shake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

The bill was passed by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States) by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives), and was signed by President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) on September 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_21), 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996).

[penchief]

I'm watching the interview a second time and there were actually a couple times where Wolf asked Cheney a question that Cheney didn't have an answer for and Cheney gave some really lame answers and struggled (adeptly, though) to get his footing.

His tact was to go on the offensive instead. Those questions were where his some of his most incredulous comments came from. For instance:

We've had enourmous succuss in Iraq.

The notion that blunders were made is "hogwash."

If it had not been for opponents of the president's policies and the press, the war in Iraq would already be over.

Seriously, what is this guy smoking? I'm beginning to believe he's a robot.

[DeepPurple]

I'm not going to read through five pages of posts, here's my opinion about the public's right to ask or know about the Vice President and his family.

Cheney's daughter has been out of the closet for quite awhile. Mary Cheney holds or held at one time the position of marketing director for gay and lesbian sales for Coors Brewery and helped end the boycott of Coors Beer by the gay community.

Cheney used his daughter to avoid service to our country. In October 1965 during the Vietnam War, exemptions from the draft were discontinued for married men without children. Three months later in January 1966 Cheney notified his draft board his wife was 10 weeks pregnant and his draft deferment was reinstated.

During the 2004 campaign Cheney's reaction to the mentioning of his daughter's lesbian lifestyle was to step aside and have his wife respond angrily to the media as if some closely kept secret had been breached.

Which brings us to the fact that the second highest member of the face of the Republican Party, a political party that eagerly seeks and receives endorsements and contributions from most of the Christian religious groups, that when questioned about his own moral behavior when it pertains to his immediate family claims that topic is off limits. This again proves Cheney is a hypocrite and leads a life built on false pretenses.

[jAZ]

I just watched this whole thing today for the first time.

I think giving him the chance to respond to the Dobson/Focus on the Family statements about his family was fair.

I think when Cheney didn't want to respond to it directly is simiarly fair.

I think Wolf Blizter needed only followup with 1 further question:

"So does that mean it's none of their business what decisions your family makes?"

[penchief]

I'm not going to read through five pages of posts, here's my opinion about the public's right to ask or know about the Vice President and his family.

Cheney's daughter has been out of the closet for quite awhile. Mary Cheney holds or held at one time the position of marketing director for gay and lesbian sales for Coors Brewery and helped end the boycott of Coors Beer by the gay community.

Cheney used his daughter to avoid service to our country. In October 1965 during the Vietnam War, exemptions from the draft were discontinued for married men without children. Three months later in January 1966 Cheney notified his draft board his wife was 10 weeks pregnant and his draft deferment was reinstated.

During the 2004 campaign Cheney's reaction to the mentioning of his daughter's lesbian lifestyle was to step aside and have his wife respond angrily to the media as if some closely kept secret had been breached.

Which brings us to the fact that the second highest member of the face of the Republican Party, a political party that eagerly seeks and receives endorsements and contributions from most of the Christian religious groups, that when questioned about his own moral behavior when it pertains to his immediate family claims that topic is off limits. This again proves Cheney is a hypocrite and leads a life built on false pretenses.

Good post. I didn't realize one of numerous deferments was because he went home and got busy. It looks lik some guys will do anything to avoid military service.

I guess they don't call him Papa Chickenhawk for nothing.

[patteeu]

I've already agreed with this. And that's not at all what I'm saying.


:spock:

[penchief]

:spock:

What's you point?

[Extra Point]

Wolf Blitzer was looking for a way to get a rise out of Uncle Dick. Dumbass mode of questioning. Stupid condescention on both parts.