Centerfield

Let's assume that 1) the Cheney's mean what they say on this issue and 2) they deem it very unlikely to drive away any support for Cheney and Bush.

I heard the tail-end of a piece about this on the news last night, but wasn't sure I was hearing what I was hearing (the VP disagreeing publicly with his president).

I think it's outstanding. I kind of suspected that was the Cheney's position, and that they were previously allowing Lynn Cheney to say what Dick could not, because of his job.

Bravo to both of them.

I second William. I read the story in the paper this a.m., and Cheney's comments struck me as honest and forthright. He's following his conscience and his heart as a father, and I have the utmost respect for that.

It seems to me that we could benefit from a politcal environment where such deviations from party line ideology based on conscience are respected. Of course, that's not how it's going. The piece I read included condemnation of Cheney from conservative gay rights opponents with calls for him to endorse the President's viewpoints, in essence declaring he has no right to state views that his conscience dictates because he should parrot whatever President Bush believes. I hope and expect that Bush will address Cheney's comments in such a way as to show that he respects Cheney's right to be his own person. If so, it will score some points with me.

I also expect that gay rights supporters will use Chenmey's comments as an opportunity to criticize Bush's stance ("even his own VP thinks he's wrong!!"). I hope I'm wrong and that if they bring it up they do so respectfully, but I'm not holding my breath. I am nbot going to suggest that this is at all planned, it could well be simple serendipity. I do note that if both right wingers and left wingers comments on this look petty and opportunistic and stridently uncompromising, and Cheney and Bush look like they're content to keep working together and that their relationship is not diminished by honest disagreement, this plays VERY well to swing voters. They'd be setting a very good example on a divisive issue, one that the middle will be pleased by. Remember, you heard it hear first.

I don't know what to think. I agree that it is good because first of all it is the right position. Second, this has been Cheney's position all along, and if he does in fact disagree he should say so, but this is Karl Rove we are talking about and one of the most political administrations in this country's history, next to Clinton. Let's face it... This is just not consistent with the Bush/Cheney relationship, which granted, is a good thing and in that case incosistency should be encouraged.

Just for the fun of it, and I fully admit I am mostly pulling this out of my ass, let's throw a pre-GOP convention conspiracy theory into the works. Aren't we getting a little too serious on this blog anyway? All this talk about Vietnam is a little dark.

One of the big reasons insiders say that Bush would never dump Cheney is because it would irritate the Conservative base. What if Cheney's recent statement about gay marriage is a way to soften his releationship with the base? What if this is the first step to taking Cheney off the ticket and replacing him with say a... John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani, or Tom Ridge, or Christie Whitman, or god forbid Zell Miller, who may may also irritate the base because of their centrist positions on various issues. I mean, if your going to put Rudy, McCain, Ridge, Miller (I really hope not), or Whitman on the ticket, it better be to replace a guy who supports gay marriage... right? :)

In order, (1) Yes, but I believe it's also honesty on Cheney's part, (2) Not much really--just as Kerry's moves to the middle won't chase off his anti-war base, this won't chase off the anti-gay right. Most of the Religious Right is not rabid, and they also have gay friends, children, relatives, etc., and (3) good question.