Bush can count Andy out

[gee double you bee]

www.andrewsullivan.com
I CANNOT SUPPORT HIM IN NOVEMBER: I will add one thing more. And that is the personal sadness I feel that this president who praises freedom wishes to take it away from a whole group of Americans who might otherwise support many parts of his agenda. To see the second family tableau with one family member missing because of her sexual orientation pains me to the core. And the president made it clear that discriminating against gay people, keeping them from full civic dignity and equality, is now a core value for him and his party. The opposite is a core value for me. Some things you can trade away. Some things you can compromise on. Some things you can give any politician a pass on. But there are other values - of basic human dignity and equality - that cannot be sacrificed without losing your integrity itself. That's why, despite my deep admiration for some of what this president has done to defeat terror, and my affection for him as a human being, I cannot support his candidacy. Not only would I be abandoning the small government conservatism I hold dear, and the hope of freedom at home as well as abroad, I would be betraying the people I love. And that I won't do.

[LittleApple81]

1. Triumph the dog put it more succintly: "why are republicans against gay

rights when so many of them have a big pole up their butts?"

[punpirate]

2. Funny...

... everyone (including Sullivan) assumes that Mary Cheney was excluded on orders. She might have been excluded by her own choice, which puts the issue in an entirely different light.

She hasn't spoken about this, and until she does, if ever, the matter is amongst the family.

edit for syntax

[LittleApple81]

3. If she felt welcomed and respected there would not be any need for

doubts. Did you see any of the "normal" (using repug terms) children "deciding" to stay in a separate box?

[punpirate]

9. Again, have we heard from her?

Not yet. Until then, one can't assume it's on orders from above.

I don't like these people, but I give their adult children the benefit of the doubt, and the right to choose as they see fit. Mary Cheney may have chosen not to appear, for her own reasons.

That's reasonable, especially after the Bush twins showed themselves to be shallow analogs of their father. Perhaps, Mary Cheney has more character than to be used by the Bush/Cheney political system, and simply said, "no."

Cheers.

[quaoar]

4. Do you think

she would have excluded herself if she thought she would have been welcomed and embraced? If she excluded herself, it was to avoid creating a controversy.

[Stephanie]

6. I wonder if she was told her partner couldn't be onstage with her

I also wonder why one sister would appear if her own sister was not welcome. I would refuse. Wouldn't you?

[readmylips]

10. Sounds like GOP family values again....

hide one child because she's different..

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Mary Cheney: Another Child Left Behind . . . . nt

[Dookus]

18. If it was her choice

then we should ask WHY she felt compelled to hide herself.

[punpirate]

21. She is the daughter of a public official...

... but not a public official herself. She's entitled to be free of examination from the public if she wishes.

Her father is a creep, and because he's a public official, accepted that he might be called out as a creep and have to explain himself.

His daughter is not public property simply because she is her father's daughter.

This is precisely the argument used to defend Chelsea Clinton from the smears of the right, not that long ago. Democrats hated what the right said about Chelsea Clinton, simply by virtue of who her birth parents were.

I've said pretty much the same thing about the Bush twins--until they volunteered themselves for the political arena and actively began to campaign for their father--at that point, the public and the press are entitled to comment on what those children say.

Mary Cheney has stayed out of the political limelight. I respect her distance, regardless of the reasons. She's not the one running for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency.

If she says she was (or was not) coerced or ordered to remain invisible, that's another matter. To date, she has not said. It's up to her to broach the subject, and the general public should remain respectful of her rights, if she doesn't elucidate her reasons. She is not her father. Her father is the asshole who has a great deal to answer for, not her.

Cheers.

[Dookus]

22. I disagree

she works for his campaign, and she was a public relations officer for Coors.

She is a public figure. If she wants to maintain her privacy, she could find many other ways to do so.

She is also out of the closet, and good for her. It may have been her decision not to appear on stage, but I posit that if that's the case, the decision was driven by the homophobia of the Republican party.

[punpirate]

25. Here's an article that goes back four years...

... on the subject:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2000_Sept_12/ai_64975344

Then, as now, I don't see her behaving as a public figure--at least not quite in the way you describe.

Again, I think it's her right to speak up, or not. At least some part of the press will ask her about it, no doubt. If she doesn't answer, that's her right. She's not running for office. If she were asked about it in her official capacity as a campaign operative, I'd hope she answer honestly, but I think that is not her primary profession.

Perhaps, ever since Richard Nixon dragged his wife out in front of the cameras in her "respectable Republican cloth coat" in his "Checkers" speech in 1952 (indeed, before that, since the right took great liberties in attacking Eleanor Roosevelt, frequently referring to her as a communist), the families of political figures have become fair game. I guess I'd prefer to stick to the issues that the candidates present. Bush wants a Constitutional marriage amendment. Condemn that. Cheney is ambivalent on the subject. He can still be castigated for his indifferent or hostile votes on gay rights issues when he was a Congressman.

But, Mary Cheney's relationship to her father and her views on his politics are her business.

My general feeling is that if we pursue the opinions and decisions of the family of politicians, we help to foster a cult of personality regarding those politicians, and play into the hands of the right, who use such tactics in furtherance of their own ends, when we should be addressing the issues and the candidates themselves. That view may not be politically expeditious, but it is right and honorable.

Cheers.

[enigmatic]

23. Mary Cheney is campaigning with her father...

in this election; she's working as his travel aide. She's certainly fair game.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[roguevalley]

7. too bad he was for him until his ox got gored. there are many reasons

to be against W. gay rights is only one.

[quaoar]

8. And another thing.....

How pathetic is a father whose continues to belong to an organization that thinks the daughter he loves is an immoral threat to society?

[Stephanie]

11. You forget - MECHANICAL HEART

He's not truly human.

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. His 2nd paragraph is shocking!

THE END OF CONSERVATISM: But conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?

[kodi]

17. shocked? randy andy has been a waterboy for the reaganists for years

they were never conservatives anyway, they always were willing to use the power of the collective force of society known as government to aggrandize their pocketbooks and hold power. ideology to a conservative is merely a figleaf excuse to hide their whoring ways.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Democrats have always been pay as you go..that's why we believe

in taxing the wealthiest...it's not like they go without when we do..in fact, they prosper more..just not the GREEDIEST of the wealthiest..but..hey...fuck them :D

[T Town Jake]

13. Gee, after supporting him all this time...

...and for all these years, Andrew Sullivan finally, at the proverbial last possible point of serious decision, comes out against Bush??? Sorry, but, considering the source, I find it hard to embrace this apparent "conversion" with much enthusiasm.

[fujiyama]

14. I can't stand Sullivanq

but I did like this line:

"Some of this, I have to say, was Orwellian. When your convention pushes so many different messages, and is united with screaming chants of "U.S.A.", and built around what was becoming almost a cult of the Great Leader, skeptical conservatives have reason "

[DemWitch]

15. I'm sorry... but a note to Andrew...

after all the shit you've been spewing the past few years... with all due respect... go Cheney yourself...

[Dookus]

19. fuck Sullivan

(but be sure to use a condom)

I simply refuse to sympathize with gay republicans. When they act surprised that the party hates them, I just laugh.

[incapsulated]

24. Who gives a fuck?

Sullivan can drop dead, for all I care. :puke:

[ibegurpard]

26. Poor Andrew

When they're kicking HIM in the teeth he finally wakes up. Fucking gay Republicans... :puke:

[foo_bar]

27. damn, I was hoping you meant Andy Card

[dbt]

28. Boo-hoo, Andrew.

You hit all around it. Sexual orientation, real Conservatism vs the Neo brand, deception, etc.

What about all the DEATH, Mr. Sullivan? Your boy bu$h is a murderer, plain and simple. The Worthless Little Fuck started with 3,000 preventable deaths on 9/11. Now he's nearing 1,000 more* in a war that was started on the basis of LIES.

:grr:
dbt

* No, I have not forgotten that thousands MORE innocent Iraqis have died for LIES.

[Chomskyite]

29. It was also very telling that the play-by-play announcers

. . . on the networks completely ignored this.

[John_H]

30. LOL! Sullivan discovers all politics is local! And don't worry, Andy:

Bush's rejection of "the small government conservatism" you hold dear, and "the hope of freedom at home as well as abroad" has pissed off so many of your fellow republicans that chimp's reelects will never see the above water side of 50 again. Especially not on November 2.